<<

REPORT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL TO THE GENER1U ASSEMBLY Covering the period from 16 July 1955 to 15 July 1956

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL RECORDS : ELEVENTH SESSION SUPPLEMENT No. 2 (A/3157)

NEW YORK, 1956

", ( ss P.) -

UNITED NATIONS

• I I, t REPORT OF THE SECURITY COU1'4'CIL TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Covering the period from 16 July 1955 to 15 July 1956

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OFFIC' AL RECORDS : ELEVENTH SESSION SUPPLEMENT No. 2 (A/3157)

New York, 1956 • - I

INTR ,t

Qu

Chapt 1.

NOTE Svmbols of United Nations document" are composed of capital letters com­ bined "with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United \:'ations document.

2.

3.

4.

s.

t • ..

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

INTRODUCTION . v "

PART I

Questione considered by the Security Council under its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security Chapter 1. THE QUESTII")N . .. 1 A. Cessation of hostilities and measures to prevent further incidents in the Gaza area . 1

B. Syrian complaint concerning incidents in the area east of Lake Tiberias ... 2 i I, C. Status of compliance given to the General Armistice Agreements and the !!l1 resolutions of the Security Council adopted during the past year . 13 I 1. Consideration of the item and adoption of the resolution of 4 April 1956 13 2. Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the Security Council's resolution of 4 April 1956 . 19 3. Consideration of the Report of the Secretary-General by the Security Council . 23

PART II

Other matters considered by the Council

2. ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS . 31 I A. Consideration of General Assembly resolutions 817 (IX) and 918 (X) ,. and of the application of Spain, and the recommendation of sixteen appli- cant States to membership . 31 B Consideration of proposals concerning Japan and the Mongolian People's Republic ...... 36 C. Application of the . 39 D. Application of Morocco...... 41

3. PROPOSAL TO CALL A GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING THE CHARTER...... 41

PART III

The Military Staff Committee

4. WORK OF THE MILITARY STAFF COMMITTEE.. ... 42

PART IV

Matte1" submitted to the Security Council which was not admitted to its agenda

5. LETTER DATED 13 JUNE 1956 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF AFGHANISTAN, , INDONESIA, IRAN, , JORDAN, LEBANON, LIBYA, PAKISTAN, SAUDI 'ARABIA, , THAILAND AND YEMEN ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL CONCERNING ALGERIA...... 43

III :,~ .. J PART V

Matters brought to the attention of the Council but not discussed Chapter Page 6. REPORTS ON THE TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS . 47

7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES . 47 The presen , Assembly by 8. COMMFNICATION RELATING TO THE KOREAN QUESTION . 47 , Article 24, pa of the Charter 9. COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THE SITUATION IN MOROCCO . 48 Essentially lines of the d 10. REPORT OF THE DISARMAMENT COMMISSION...... 48 substitute for stitute the onl 11. CONV,,- "

1 This is the 13. LETTER DATED 12 JULY 1956 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION OF to the General SOVIET SOCIALI3T REPUBLICS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEC'JRITY under the symbo COUNCIL " . 49 .v2167, A/2437,

Appendices I. Representatives and deputy, alternate and acting representatives accredited to the Security Council: ...... 50

n. Presidents of the Security Council...... 50

Ill. Meetings of the Security Council during the period from 16 July 1955 to 15 July 1956...... 51

IV. Representatives, Chairmen and Principal Secretaries of the Military Staff Committee 51

iv • 1 I

INTRODUCTION

The present report! :3 submitted to the General at its 534th plenary meeting on 14 October 1955, elected , Assembly by the Security Council in accordance with and Cuba, and, at its 560th plenary meeting \ Article 24, paragraph 3, and Article 15, paragraph 1, on 20 December 1955, elected Yugoslavia as non­ of the Charter. permanent members of the Council to fill vacancies Essentially a summary and guide reflecting the broad resulting from the expiration, on 31 December 1955, lines of the debates, the report is not intended as a of the term of officeof Brazil, and Turkey. substitute for the records of the Council, which con­ The newly-elected members of the Cor-reil also replaced stitute the only comprehensive and authoritative account the retiring members on the Disarmament Commission of its deliberations. which was established under the Security Council by Wit'i respect to the membership of the Council during the General Assembly in accordance with its resolution the period covered, it will be recalled that the Assembly, 502 (VI) of 11 January 1952, to carry forward the tasks originally assigned to the Atomic Energy Commission and the Commission for Conventional Armaments. 1 This is the eleventh annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly. The previous reports were submitted The period covered in "he present report is from under the symbols A/93, A/366, A/620, A/945, A/1361, A/1873, 16 July 1955 to 15 July 1956. The Council held thirty­ /1./2167, A/2437, r~ /2i12 and A/2935. two meetings. during that period.

, v PART I

QuestioliS considered by the Security Council under its responsibility for the maiutenance of international peace and security

Chapter 1

THE PALESTINE QUESTION

'A. Cessation of hostilities and measures to pre­ the parties to observe a strict cease-fire covering all vent further Incidents In the Gaza area hostile acts, Egypt had informed him of its agreement, but had stated that, should the other side start any 1. In a letter dated 29 August 1955 (S/3Egyptians, and the wounding of thirteen. On which the Egyptian Government proposed to pursue 4 September, after a renewed appeal for a rease-fire undeviatingly. to both parties, the cease-fire was accepted oy both 2. In a letter dated 6 September 1955 (S/3431), Israel and Egypt, the latter reiterating that its earlier the representative of Egypt reported to the Security acceptance of a cease-fire held .sood. The Chief of Staff Council that, since 22 August 1955, Israel armed forces concluded that a. repetition of the incidents of firing had embarked upon vast military operations, including between Egyptian outposts and Israel motor patrols, crossings of the demarcation line at several points. which had precipitated many crises since February" Moreover, while the Egyptian authorities had imme­ 1955, would be avoided only if the forces of the op­ diately accepted a cease-fire to start on 30 August, as posing sides were separated by an effective physical proposed by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations barrier along the demarcation line; and if, in addition, Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine, Israel defensive positions and motorized patrols were kept at had not given its approval, and on the following day least 500 metres from the demarcation line on either "committed the most flagrant incident since the con­ side. clusion of the General Armistice Agreement" in the 5. On 7 September, in a letter (S/3432) to the area of Khan Y unis, This operation had resulted in the President of the Security Council, the representatives death of ten Egyptian soldiers and twenty-five refugees, of France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and nineteen others being inj ured. Northern Ireland and the of America ~. In a report circulated on 6 September 1955 (SI requested the convening of the Council to consider the 3430). the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision item entitled: "The Palestine question: cessation of Organization stated that the chain of violent incidents hostilities and measures to prevent further incidents in . had started with an incident on 22 August in which the Gaza area", and submittecl the following draft Israel forces occupied an Egyptian post near the resolution: demarcation line and that the Mixed Armistice Com­ "The Security Council, mission might be unable to determine which of the "Recalling its resolution of 30 March 1955, parties was responsible for beginning the action. "Ha1.'ing received the report of the Chief of Staff 4. That episode had been followed by an organized of the Truce Supervision Organization, series of attacks on vehicles, installations. and persons carried out by gangs of marauders operating well inside "Notinq with grave concern the discontinuance of Israel territory. On 26 August, in view of the deteriora­ the talks initiated by the Chief of Staff in accordance non of the situation in the Gaza area, the Chief of with the above-mentioned resolution, Staff had requested that responsible Israel authorities "Deploring the recent outbreak of violence in the JJ1 the area be instructed to act with restraint and, on area along the Armistice Demarcation Line estab­ 28 August, he had obtained the agreement of Egyptian lished between Egypt and Israel on 24 February 1949, authol;ties to the re-posting of United Nations military '-1. Notes with approval the acceptance by both • ohservers at certain points on the Egyptian side. On parties of the appeal of the Chief of Staff for an 30 August, in response to the Chief of Staff's appeal to unconditional cease-fire; 1 ~ ~ , .' '...... " , • -~--" +- - - ~ .. - "2. Calls ut-on both parties forthwith to take all resulted in the killing of five officers, thirty-two soldiers Since the Council steps necessary to bring nbout order and tranquillity and twelve civilians, including three women ; eight recurrence of those in the area and in particular to desist from further other soldiers had been \\ ounded and thirty taken pris­ deal with the situat nets of violence and to continue the cease-fire in full oner. In the course of that attack, a large number of armed forces, with force and effect: houses hl'1onging' to Syrian villages had been destroyed maintaining peace iI "3. Endorses the view of the Chief of Staff that the and the occupants. had been killed under the debris. 14. The represe armed forces of both parties should be clearly and The whole series of attacks constituted a most flagrant cordance with the tt effectively separated by measures such as those which violation of the Syrian-Israel General Armistice Agree­ Agreement the who he has proposed ; ment and an act of open aggression and provocation. strip of land on it "4. Declares that freedom of movement must be Accordingly, Syria requested the Security Council to territory, and Syri afforded to United Nations observers in the area to meet as soon as possible and to take the measures status on the Lake. enable them to iulfill their functions; necessary to meet that serious situation. Mixed Armistice C< "5. Calls upon both parties to appoint representa­ 10. At the 707th meeting (16 December 1955), the on 15 March 1954, tives to meet with the Chief of Staff and to co­ Syrian complaint was included in the agenda and the of Lake Tiberias a. operate fully with him to these ends; Council invited the representatives of Syria and Israel Syrian right to int representa~ves "6. Requests the Chief of Staff to report to the to participate in the discussion. The applied both to fishi Securitv Council on the action taken to carry out of Turkey, the United States of America, the United strip on the eastern this resolution." Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the that resolution, Isrs Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France, Iran, 6. At the 700th meeting (S September 1955), the the renewal of the 1 China, Peru, Belgium and the President, speaking as for fishing by Syri representatives of the United Kingdom of Great Britain the representative of New Zealand, stated that.the and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, however, had refuse trasic incident which had occurred on the Syrian­ Syria, which had op France, New Zealand, Iran, Peru, Belgium, China and Isr~el border had been considered by their Governments the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stressed the embarked upon a st as a matter of great and grave concern and their Gov­ poses. Syrian artillei advisability of not bringing into the debate the question ernments deplored that attack. They considered tl~at of responsibility for the recent incidents, the necessity had dominated Israe the Council should await the final report of the Chief as well as hundreds of maintaining the cease-fire in the Gnza area, and the of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organi-ation, as well necessity of resuming the interrupted negotiations and as the text of the Mixed Armistice Commission's 15. The repeated of complying with the suggestions formulated in the decision on the case. mission to Syria to report of the Chief of Staff, particularly the measures went unheeded. Ace: 11. At the same meeting, the representative of Syria intended to separate the opposing armed forces. The arisen in which 3. c representative of Iran noted that the detention by Israel stated that the armed aggression by Israel had been either peaceful activ without any justification, since for the last two ):ears of United X ations personnel constituted a serious stopped in deferenc situation, which he truster] would not recur. the situation along the armistice lines had been relatively would become silen calm, with only sporadic events of an Ol'dina~y cha.r­ work and developm 7. The representative of Israel expressed his agree­ acter, Israel had itself stated that, in the lust SIX ment with the objectives of the joint draft resolution; against that backg months of 1954, its casualties on the of attack by Syrian bat however, he considered that the real solution for main­ had been two killed and seven wounded and that, fr0111 taining peace did not lie only in practical measures or forces had undertak January to October 1955, a few minor incidents had \ ',' Israel must tell the technical devices but in the mutual interpretation of the occurred. Even if that statement were to be accepted, armistice as a transition to peace. ~ itself from time to ti it should not constitute sufficient ground for Israel to activities in various 8, The representative of Egypt stressed that Israel • carry out a large-scale attack resulting in such loss of attempts would hav was responsible for the discontinuance of the talks •I life and property. Similarly, Israel should not ha\:e persistent and WOt initiated in conforrnit- with the Security Council's reso­ . ' resorLd to force even if it had a complaint on the baSIS possibility of localiz lution of 30 March 1955. He underlined the gravity of of an old dispute concerning fishing rights in Lake the attack on Khan Yunis which had been committed Tiberias. 16. Referring to letter to the Secret after the cease-fire appeal addressed to the parties by 12. Israel had admitted that the attack was a meas­ the Chief of Staff and accepted by Egypt. His Govern­ Israel stated that, in ure of retaliation, but the principle of retaliation had ""1 a sinister communic ment would consider favourably the proposals con­ been expressly rejected by the Council and it had tained in the report of the Chief of St.... ff and was always the interests of the previously condemned Israel for such actions. It was Egyptian Prime Mii ready to co-operate with the Truce Supervision evident that Israel had persistently violated the Charter. Organization. communication. Tha For that reason, the representative of Syria wished to Israel to declare to Decision: The joint draft resolution was adopted remind the Council that, under Article 6 of the Charter, Israel was ever att unanimously (5/3435). a Member State which had persistently violated the accordance with its principles of the Charter might be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the rec­ 2. REPORTS B. Syrian complaint concerning incidents ill the ommendation of the Security Council. Mere and re­ area east of Lake Tiberias (S/3505) peated condemnation of. Isr~el by t~e Council ~as 17. In a report d inadequate to meet the situation, Syria would remind !I, the Chief of Staff of the Council of its competence to recommend the ex­ 1. INCLUSION OF THE ITEM IN THE AGENDA tion in Palestine st pulsion of Israel. Similarly,.Syria :would urge. the 1 Tiberias attack to t 9. In a letter dated 13 December 1955 (S/3505), Council to decide upon economic sanctions, as provided l' and their police esc the permanent representative of Syria to ~he Unit~ for in the Charter. cernber. Incidents c Nations informed the President of the Security Council 13. In conclusion, the representative of Syria drew Tiberias had, from t that, on the night of 11-12 December 1955, Israel armed the Council's attention to a letter dated 15 December between Israel and forces had launched a concentrated large-scale attack 1955 (S/3514) addressed by the Prime Minister of interference with its along the whole area lying to the east of Lake Tiberias. Egypt to the Secretary-General, wherein the former had , sented the fact that After a fierce fight Israel forces had occupied four informed the Secretary-General that the Israel attack • exercising the fishin observation posts parallel to the eastern shores of Lake against Syria constituted an attack upon Egypt, in view f the Anglo-French A Tiberias on Syrian territory. That planned attack had of the treaty obligations between the two countries. I' had expressed its r 2 " - <, t ... / : ~ '\.. ,; \ .. " • .'I! • ..,... • ." I \,

' I' - Since the Council had been unable to prevent the of the 1923 Agreement and had also suggested that recurrence of those attacks. Egypt felt compelled to individual Syrians should he granted fishing permits. \, deal with the situation itself, including the use of its Those suggestions had not been accepted by Syria and armed forces, with a view to ensuring its safety and Israel police had not only protected Israel fisl: errnen, maintaining peace in the area. but had prevented the inhabitants of Syria from fishing " 14. The representative of Israel stated that in ac­ in the Lake. Accordingly, the Israel police had, from cordance with the terms of the Israel-Syrian Armistice time to time, been fired at from Syrian positions dose Agreement the whole of I...ake Tiberias, with a narrow to the shore of the Lake; the Israel police had also strip of land on its eastern shore, lay within Israel tired at those Syrian positions. Israel had claimed that, territory, and Syria had no political or geographical in the first six months of 1954, its casualties on the status on the I...ake. He recalled that the Syrian-Israel Lake had been two killed and seven wounded. During Mixed Armistice Commission, by a resolution adopted the same period, Syrian casualties had been one woman on 15 March 1954, had established the Israel character killed and four soldiers wounded. of Lake Tiberias as Israel territory and rejected any 18. In most cases, according to Israel complaints, Syrian right to intrude upon activity therein. That firing by Syrian positions had been directed not at applied both to fishing and to the use of the ten-metre Israel fishing craft, but at Israel police boats. Those strip on the eastern shore. Nevertheless, in discussing boats often cruised close to the shore, preventing the that resolution, Israel had suggested negotiations for inhabitants of Syria from crossing the ten-metre strip the renewal of the 1923 agreement which had provided to fish in, or use the water of, the Lake. Such cruising for fishing by Syrians in the . Syria, had been considered provocative by near-by Syrian po­ however. had refused to enter into such negotiations. sitions, and there had often been exchanges of fire. In Syria, which had opposed the Commission's ruling, had order to prevent incidents during the fishing season, embarked upon a steady course of frustrating its pur­ Syria had been informed that, during the 1955 fishing poses. Syrian artillery, established close to the frontier, season, Israel fishermen would concentrate their ac­ had dominated Israel's territory on the eastern shore, tivities on the north-eastern part of the Lake. Syria as well as hundreds of metres of the Lake's surface. bad acted on that information and, accordingly, no 15. The repeated call of the Mixed Armistice Com­ Israel fishing boats had been fired at since the begin­ mission to Syria to implement its ruling of 15 March ning of the fishing season. The 10 December incident, went unheeded. Accordingly, a situation had manifestly which had been followed by the violent retaliatory action arisen in which a crucial choice had presented itself: against the Syrian positions on the night of 11-12 either peaceful activity on the Lake would have to be December, had been again an incident between Israel stopped in deference to Syrian guns. or Syrian guns craft other than fishing boats and a Syrian position. would become silent in order that the conditions for There had been no Israel or Syrian casualties during work and development might be restored. It had been that incident, and neither party had requested an against that background, following the unprovoked emergency meeting of the Mixed Armistice Commis­ attack by Syrian batteries on 10 December, that Israel sion. The Chief of Staff stated that the incidents of forces had undertaken the operation of 11 December. Syrian shooting at Israel boats on Lake Tiberias, which Israel must tell the Council that. if it did not defend Israel had given as the reason for its retaliatory action itself from time to time against attempts to paralyse its on the night of 11-12 December, would hardly appear activities in various parts of the country, then those to be its sole cause, when viewed against the back­ attempts would have become more frequent and more ground of the relations between the parties. He ex­ persistent and would have gone far beyond any plained that, apart from the differences existing between possibility of localized repulse. the parties with regard to the demilitarized zone, the relations between them had been more seriously em­ 16. Referring to the Egyptian Prime Minister's bittered by their failure to agree to an exchange of letter to the Secretary-General, the representative of prisoners during 1955. Israel stated that, in his Government's opinion, it was a sinister communication and that it would not be in 19. The Israel action on the night of 11-12 De­ the interests of the peace in the for the cember, the Chief of Staff reported, was a deliberate Egyptian Prime Minister to act on the basis of that violation of the provisions of the General Armistice communication. That letter had made it necessary for Agreement, including those relating to the demilitarized Israel to declare to the Government of Egypt that, if zone, which had been crossed by the Israel forces which Israel was ever attacked, it would defend itself in had entered Syria. accordance with its inherent rights. 20. Like the Qibya and Gaza incidents. the Tiberias incident had been explained by Israel as a retaliatory 2. REPORTS OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF action on a large scale. There was, however, a risk in retaliatory action, uis., that the attackers might not 17. In a report dated 15 December 1955 (S/3516), be able to limit the extent of the operation to that the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organiza­ planned and. through reaction by the forces of the tion in Palestine stated that Israel had linked the attacked country, full-scale hostilities might ensue. The Tiberias attack to the shelling of Israel fishing boats disparity between the scale of retaliation and the provo­ and their police escorts on Lake Tiberias on 10 De­ cation which had been cited by the Israel Government cember. Incidents connected with fishing on Lake was striking. In view of the above-mentioned factors, Tiberias had, from time to time, increased the tension the Chief of Staff considered that an attempt to find between Israel and Syria: Israel had resented Syrian a solution to the problem by suggesting agreements interference with its fishing activities; Syria had re­ to be effected within the scope of the Israel-Syrian sented the fact that its inhabitants were no longer General Armistice Agreement was probably not real­ exercising the fishing rights they had enjoyed under istic. The informal procedure of informing the Syrians the Angle-French Agreement of 7 March 1923. Israel about Israel fishing activities with a view to avoiding had expressed its readiness to negotiate the renewal firing by mistake might, however, if the parties agreed, - help in preventing further incidents in the north-eastern it in the ten-metre strip contravened the Armistice area of Lake Tiberias, The right of Israel to send Agreement. "7. Requests police boats to patrol anvwhere would in no wav be Nations to ren reports 01. the impaired by a new gentleman's agreement similar to 3. VIEWS OF TIlE PARTIES AND OF TIlE MEMBERS 01' the one signed in May 1953 to keep them at a certain Tlm COUNCIL 27. At the 50 distance from the shore. Similarly, the Israel right to 1srael remarked tl the ten-metre strip along the shore would not be affected 25, At the 709th meeting (22 December 1955), the rights of its n by letting Syrian inhabitants water their cattle in, or the representative of Syria stated that Israel had vio­ belong in an intei draw water from, the Lake. The Syrian authorities lated the cease-fire, broken the Armistice Agreement, the sovereian ell! could also, without impairing their legal position in the ~ommi~ted. an act of aggression and, finally, betrayed taken part ill an matter, .authorize individuals residing in Syria to apply Its obligations under the Charter. It was. irrelevant to force, In the L.I, for fishing permits issued by the Israel authorities. set up the plea of fishing rights as a justification for of Syrian gun [-0 21. In conclusion, the Chief of Staff stated that Israel',s large-scale attack against Syria. The repre­ transfer to Syria sentative of Israel had also made reference to frontiers an early exchange of prisoners would also help in I There had been relieving tension. In the present circumstances, the as well as to the sovereignty of Israel over Lake against the territr ~i.berias; als~ assert~l .J alternative to the use of force, which was to be strongly he had that Syria had no po­ a policy specifica litical or legal status 111 relation to the Lake. All those condemned, was the implementation of the General 28. The contei Armistice Agreement, supplemented, if possible, by assertions were a flagrant violation of the Armistice Agreement. In the first place, the representative of which Israel had gentlemen's agreements within the framework of the 3518) showed ho Armistice Agreement and in its spirit. Syria said, there were no frontiers between Syria and I' Israel. Then. Israel had no sovereignty over Lake that their jurisdict 22. In a supplementary report dated 30 December Tiberia~, while Syria had every legal and political extended to 250 1955 (S/3516/Add.l), the Chief of Staff stated that status 111 the whole matter. Indeed, it should be re­ casions as far as interrogation of a Syrian cadet taken prisoner durinz membered tl.at, under the Armistice Agreement, there hoped that the C the Tiberias attack had elicited the information that. were only demarcation lines and no international boun­ a clear injunction o~ 10 December, from his post at Douga he had fired daries. Similarly, Israel had no legal or political status, Israel's activity 0 WIth a bazooka at an Israel police boat which was at not only on Lake Tiberias, but on every inch of the , ,. rounding the Lak a distance of eighty metres from the shore. Copies of Palestine territory that was under its control. ding Syria from documents in , reported to have been captured Tiberias or its sh during the raid, were made available to the Chief of 26. The representative of Syria then submitted the Staff. On the assumption that they were authentic, the following draft resolution (5/3519): 29. In a lette first document, dated 14 March 1954, contained orders "The Security Council, sentative of the from the Syrian Chief of Staff to the effect that the requested the Pre "Raving examined the report of the Chief of Staff with rule 38 of tl limit of territorial waters off the Syrian shore in Lake of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organiza­ Tiberias should be considered to be at 250 metres from put the Syrian dr tion in Palestine dated 15 December 1955, form (S/3528): shore; that fire should be opened on Israel military "Recalling its resolution of 15 July 1948, boats approaching closer than 250 metres; and that "The Securitj "Recalling further its condemnation of Israel mili­ no fire should be opened on fishing boats, unless they "Having exat took part in landing operations. The Chief of Staff tary actions as expressed in its resolutions of 24 November 1953 and 29 March 1955, of the United ] commented that, while the General Armistice Agree­ zation in Palest ment ~i.d not contc;in any clause authorizing Syrian "Noting that the Security Council in the said two authorities to consider any particular area in Lake resolutions has called upon Israel to take effective • "Recalling its Tiberias as Syrian waters, it should be noted that the me~sures to prevent the recurrence of such military "Recalling fUI Syrian order had been issued in March 1954 when actions, tary actions as so-called Israel police boats, armed with machine-guns "Deeply concerned that Israel has not heeded the November 1953 and cannon, had been considered by the Mixed Armi­ said resolutions, stic, Commission to be naval craft prohibited by the "Noting that "Considering that further military action by Israel resolutions has General Armistice Agreement in defensive areas. Con­ tends to disturb the peace and security of the area, tinued use of such boats in the vicinity of the north­ measures to pre eastern shore of the Lake might have been considered "1. Condemns Israel for the outrageous attack actions, provocative or threatening after the Mixed Armistice which was carried out by its military forces on 12 "Deeply cone COl!unission:s decision, thus explaining, though not ex­ December 1955 against the territory and armed said resolutions, forces of Syria; CUSll1g, Syrian orders to fire at Israel military boats "Considering getting closer than 250 metres from the shore. "2. Decides that the said action is a violation of tends to disturb 23. The second document, dated 8 November 1955, the :e~olution of 15 July 1948, the Syrian-Israel contained instructions given by the Syrian Commander Armistice Agreement and Israel's obligations under "1. Cond e11l11 of the south-western front in connexion with the 1955­ the Charter; which was carri 1956 fishing season, according to which Syrians were "3. Decides further that the said armed attack December 1955 to be prevented from fishing until new orders had heen constitutes an aggression under the provisions of forces of Svria- ,: received. Israel fishermen were not to be prevented Article 39 of the Charter; "2. Decides t from fishing. unless they came nearer than 250 metres "4. Calls upon the Members of the United Nations the resolution f!~ol.n the shore. Fis!li.ng l?y Syrians was absolutely pro­ to a~lopt th~ necess~ry measures for applying eco­ Armistice Agree hibited and fish orig.nating from the Lake were to be nomic sanctions against Israel; the Charter; confiscated. "5. Decides to expel Israel from the United "3. Calls upo 24. Finally, there were other documents which con­ urcs tu prevent tained instructions for the defence of the Douga post Nations under Article 6 of the Charter for her persistent violation of the Principles of the Charter; ~~ "4. Warns I against an Israel attack. Such instructions were for I any army a matter of routine. As regards the emplace­ "6. pccides that Israel should pay adequate corn­ such actions wil ment of a Syrian bazooka within ten metres of the pensation for the loss of and damage to life and the Security Co shore, the Chief of Staff stated that the order to emplace property caused by the said attack; application of Charter; 4 • - "7. Requests the Secretary-General of the United "5. Decides that Israel should pay adequate com­ Nations to render to the Security Council progress pensation for the loss of and damage to life and reports or. the implementation of this resolution." property caused by the said attack; 27. At the same meeting, the representative of "6. Requests the Secretary-General of the United Israel remarked that a State which did not acknowledge Nations to render to the Security Council progress the rights of its neighbour to its very statehood did not reports on the implementation of this resolution." belong in an international society which was based on 30. On 11 January 1956, France, the United King- the sovereian equality of all its members. Syria had clam and the United States circulated the following taken part ill an attempt to destroy Israel by armed draft resolution (S/3530): force. In the Lake Tiberias area, the avowed purpose "The Security Council, of Syrian gun positions was to deny to Israel and to "Recalling its resolutions of 15 July 1948, 11 Au­ transfer to Syria effective control over Israel territory. gust 1949, 18 l\Iay 1951, 24 November 1953 and There had been a use and threat of for ~e by Syria 29 March 1955, . against the territorial integrity of the State of Israel, \ a policy specifically forbidden by the Charter. "Takinq into consideration the statements of the ~. representatives of Syria and Israel and the reports of 28. The contents of the captured Syrian documents the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organi­ which Israel had communicated to the Council (S/ zation on the Syrian complaint that an attack was 3518) showed how Syrian authorities had considered ,' committed by Israel regular army forces against that their jurisdiction over the waters of Lake Tiberias Syrian regular army forces on Syrian territory on extended to 250 metres from the shore, and on oc­ 11 December 1955, casions as far as 400 metres. The Israel delegation "Noting the report of the Chief of Staff that this hoped that the Council would include in its resolution Israel action was a deliberate violation of the pro­ a clear injunction to Syria to avoid interference with visions of the General Armistice Agreement, includ­ Israel's activity on the Lake and Israel territory sur­ ing those relating to the demilitarized zone, which ruunding the Lake; and also a clear statement forbid­ was crossed by the Israel forces which entered Syria, ding Syria from exercising illegal control on Lake Tiberias or its shores. "Noting also from the reports of the Chief of Staff .1 that there has been interference by the Syrian au­ '. 29. In a letter dated 9 January 1956, the repre­ thorities with Israel activities on Lake Tiberias in sentative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics contravention of the terms of the General Armistice requested the President of the Council, in accordance Agreement between Israel and Syria, with rule 38 of the provisional rules of procedure, to "I. Reminds the Government of Israel that the put the Syrian draft resolution to vote in the following Coun:il has already condemned military action in form (S/3528): breach of the General Armistice Agreements, whether "The Security Council, or not undertaken by way of retaliation, and has "Having examined the report of the Chief of Staff called upon Israel to take effective measures to of the United Nations. Truce Supervision Organi­ prevent such actions; zation in Palestine dated 15 December 1955, "2. Condemns the attack of 11 December as a flagrant violation of the cease-fire provisions of its "Recalling its resolution of 15 July 1948, resolution of 15 July 1948, of the terms of the General "Recalling [urthcr its condemnation of Israel mili­ Armistice Agreement between Israel and Syria, and tary actions as expressed in its resolutions of 24 of Israel's obligations under the Charter; November 1953 and 29 March 1955, ".3. Expresses its grave concern at the failure "Noting that the Security Council in the said two of the Government of Israel to comply with its resolutions has called upon Israel to take effective obligations; measures to prevent the recurrence of such military "4. Calls upon the Government of Israel to do so actions, in the future, in default of which the Council will "Deeply concerned that Israel has not heeded the have to consider what further measures are required said resolutions, to maintain or restore the peace; "Considering that further military action by Israel "5. Calls upon the parties to comply with their tends to disturb the peace and security of the area, obligations under Article 5 of the General Armistice Agreement to respect the Armistice Demarcation "1. Condemns Israel for the outrageous attack Line and the demilitarized zone; which was carried out by its military forces. on 12 "6. Requests the Chief of Staff to pursue his December 1955 against the territory and armed s.uggestions for improving the situation in the area forces of Svria : - , of Lake Tiberias and to report to the Council as "2. Decides that the said action is a violation of appropriate on the success of his efforts; the resolution of 15 July 1948, the Syrian-Israel "7. Calls upon both parties to co-operate with Armistice Agreement and Israel's obligations under the Chief of Staff in this and all other respects, to the Charter; carry out the provisions of the General Armistice "3. Calls upon Israel to take all necessary rneas­ Agreement in good faith, and in particular to make ures tu prevent such actions; full use of the Mixed Armistice Commission's ma­ i. i chinery in the interpretation and application of its I "4. Warns Israel that any future recurrence of such actions will bring about a situation requiring provisions." the Security Council to consider the question of the 31. At the 710th meeting (12 January 1956), the application of Article 39 0 (ne United Nations representative of the United Kingdom said at the outset Charter; that, with regard to the Palestine question, his Gov- 5 • •t • " C' . • ,. c, .... .' ~ .... foil" I '.. .'" . . ...

ernment's policy was to make every effort to bring own hands. It was most serious that a Member of the beyond the den about a lasting settlement between Israel and i.s neigh­ United Nations, indeed a Member created by the troops ;'ad als: bours. However, there could be no possibility of re­ United Nations, should IlQW be before the Council for when they had ducing tension with a view to a more permanent the fourth offence of tliac kind in two years. The United Accordingly, tl setdement so long- as the Government of Israel sought States was concerned that Israel and its Arab neigh­ upon the partie to impose its policy on its Arab neighbours by force. hours were continuing to avoid their obligations under article 5 of th He recalled that, over the past two years, the Council the Armistice Agreements and the Charter to strive .:\rmistice Dem: had had to deal with deplorable incidents at Qibya, for the restoration of peace in the area. The Tiberias 39. The Fr N ahhalin and at Gaza, and now with that of Lake attack had served only to inflame and intensify the principle that _ Tiberias; all of them were calculated military attacks, hostility which already existed. Israel's deed was so damage caused involving loss of civilian lives, in some cases on an out of proportion to the provocation that it could not It did not belie, appalling scale. Moreover, the Government of Israel be accurately described as a retaliatory raid. The competent, or 1 had not disguised the fact that those attacks had been Security Council must do more than condemn Israel, arrange for fai perpetrated by units of its own army. It should warn Israel that another transgression would could be had i 32. The reports of the Chief of Staff made it clear compel the Council to consider what further measures of Justice. Th that Israel had a legitimate grievance in regard ~J under the Charter were required to maintain or restore the three-Powe Syrian activities in the north-east corner of Lake the peace. only with the I Tiberias. But the most striking fact that emerged from 36. As regards the question of compensation, the the recurrence the Chief of Staff's reports was the scale and violence United States representative said that his Government 40. The re] of the Israel attacks resulting in such a shocking loss had given most careful thought to the wisdom of calling Socialist Repu of life. The United Kingdom delegation had always upon Israel to p~y compensation in the light of the had attempted t held the view, which the Council had also often em­ fact that it felt there should be reparation for Israel's which Israel wa bodied in its resolutions, that, whatever the provocation, deed. However, it had been unable, because of all of was supposed t the whole principle of retaliation was wrong, both the complications involved, to iormulate a procedure That explanati morally and politically. Israel, however, had not heeded which would be equitable for assessing compensation Chief of Staff's those injunctions. It was time for Israel to understand for the act. That did not mean that his delegation dis- "\ Syrian side ha that such a policy, morally reprehensible and mistaken, agreed with the principi> of compensation, nor did it had begun, not did not pay. If ever another attack of the same kind mean that it was not prepared to establish such ma­ fired at by Sy were launched, the Council might well have to decid-, chinery for the future, such as requesting the Secretary­ lutions of 24 N because its previous injunctions were insufficient, what General to study ways and means of equitable assess­ expressed the further measures it should take to restore peace and ment and payment of compensation for such offences. against Jordan i order. As regards the future, his delegation considered it of in the region the utmost importance that the parties should live up 33. The United Kingdom delegation regretted that tempted to just to their Armistice Agreements, respect the armistice the representative of Israel had intimated in his letter precisely as it \\' lines and the demilitarized zones and co-operate fully of 29 December (S/3524) that his Government would in the Lake Tit with the Chief of Staff. The Syrian-Israeli Mixed reject the proposal submitted by the Chief of Staff about had disregarded Armistice Commission did not function and the respon­ the patrol boats on the ground that it would impair ing it, and that I sibility, therefore, rested squarely with both parties, t­ Israel's rights. He felt it was reasonable to ask both the situation 0 who had established the Commission for the specific parties to co-operate with the Chief of Staff in pur­ delegation belie purpose of resolving differences between them. There suing the helpful and modest proposals he had made Israel to take a were hundreds of case s on the Commission's agenda, to reduce tension in the area. actions in the yet the- parties would l'Ot meet to resolve them. The solemnly warn I 34. As regards the Syrian draft resolution, as parties must make use of their Mixed Armistice Com­ might bring ab amended by the USSR, his delegation felt that for a mission machinery. In normal circumstances the Council to consider the member of the Council to sponsor in a mutilated form should have awaited the decision of the Mixed Armi- t. of the Charter. the proposal of one of the parties seemed not only odd stice Commission and the Council's present considera­ to observe scrul but undesirable. The draft resolution did not mention tion of the matter was justified only by the shocking the Council's re Syrian interference with Israel activities and had made aspect of the attack of 11 December and should not 41. Moreove no mention at all of the helpful suggestions of the Chief serve as a precedent for other complaints which had Israel to pay of Staff. On the question of compensation, the repre­ not been processed through the Mixed Armistice caused by the sentative of the United Kingdom said the three-Power Commission. amended by the draft resolution had made no provision, because it had 37. The representative of France said that the poses. The US seemed rloubtful whether such a provision could prop­ Tiberias attack was certainly an aggressive act by its warning by the erly be made in regard to one isolated case. It was very nature, irrespective of the losses and damage eration by' Israe right in principle that compensation should be paid suffered by either side, and the Council would be failing the Council's 1 for injury and damage resulting from illegal acts of in its duty if it did not tr y to find ways to stop the incidents had fai violence, but the difficulty was to sec how the principle recurrence of such incidents. The Chief of Staff had could be fairly enforced on both sides. He indicated 42. The Cot made various useful suggestions and the three-Power representative w that, when the time for voting came, he would ask that draft resolution gave him the Council's full support. the three-Power draft resolution be given priority. blame for the La Those suggestions could not, however, be effective as Kil!gdom rep res 35. The representative of the United States said long as the parties continued to regard the demarcation rations by Syri: that, in eo-sponsoring the three-Power draft resolution, line as a barrier which only the adversary was forbidden to retaliate. But his delegation did not advocate the cause of one side to cross, but which in no way hampered any incursions that Syrian aut] or the other; its sole desire was to prevent the recur­ of their own. boats, and tha rence of the kind of action undertaken by Israel in 38. After explaining the terms of the three-Power allegedly had lee tlie Lake Tiberias area and to secure for the peoples draft resolution, by which Israel was condemned for been an incident of the Palestine area and the Middle East a peaceful its attack of 12 December, the representative of France boats, and Syri settlement. His delegation had repeatedly declared that pointed out that Syria, having signed an armistice with also stated that no Government had the right to take the law into its Israel, had no right to establish gun or bazooka positions casualties ill the 6 • I - e beyond the demarcation line on the Israel side. Syrian party had requested an emergency meeting of the Mixed e troops ;'acl also committed a breach of the armistice Armistice Commission. Thus, it was clear that there .r when they had fired on boats sailing on Lake Tiberias, was no justification for affirming or stating, as the cl Accordingly, the three-Power draft resolution called representative of the United Kingdom had done, that 1- upon the parties to comply with their obligations under there had been any provocation by Syria. ~r article 5 of the Armistice Agreement to respect the 43. At the 711th meeting (12 January), the repre­ 'e Armistice Demarcation Line and the demilitarized zone. sentative of Yugoslavia stated that a study of the docu­ IS 39. The French delegation fully subscribed to the ments showed that Israel's attack was an utterly unjust le principle that St ces bore pecuniary responsibility for and unprovoked act of retaliation. The statement that iO damage caused by the unlawful acts of their agents. the Israel attack had been provoked by the 10 December it It did not believe, however, that the Council was legally incident could not be accepted. His delegation was I' le competent, or that it was the organ best equipped to alive to the warning of the Chief of Staff to the effect I~ ~l. arrange for fair compensation in those cases. Recourse that such retaliatory acts might lead to grave and i~ Id could be had in that regard to the International Court unforeseen consequences. es of Justice. The representative of France added that 44. The Yugoslav Government did not approve of re the three-Power draft resolution was concerned not frontier incidents or any other acts which might be only with the past, but was also designed to prevent considered as provocations. Neither could it accept the le the recurrence of incidents in the future. position that such acts should be used as a pretext for nt ~ 40. The representative of the Union of Soviet and justification of the use of force and retaliation. 19 Socialist Republics said that the Israel representative In that particular case, retaliatory acts not only dis­ le had attempted to explain the Tiberias attack as :..eprisals couraged efforts to reach solutions of the numerous l's which Israel was entitled to take for action which Syria problems in that part of the world, but also rendered of was supposed to have taken against Israel fishing boats. more difficult the improvement of the international re That explanation could not be accepted, since the climate in general. Israel, being responsible for that m Chief of Staff's report clearly indicated that, after the attack, 1.S well as for the loss of life and material damage .5- "\ Syrian side had been informed that the fishing season to which it had led, should be resolutely censured it had begun, not a single Israel fishing boat had been and be called upon to take all measures to prevent a- fired at by Syria. The Security Council, in its reso­ any further aggravation of the situation in the future. y- lutions of 24 November 1953 and 29 March 1955, had The decision the Council would take must, in addition, is- expressed the strongest censure of Israel's actions endeavour to put an end to such action and to create es, against Jordan in the region of Qibya and against Egypt conditions which would spare the Council the necessity of in the region of Gaza, actions which Israel had at­ of having to consider again not only measures of that l1p tempted to justify by claiming the right of retaliation, kind, but also other possibilities. re precisely as it was doing in connexion with the incident 45. As regards the rmin problem of Palestine, the llv in the Lake Tiberias area. Bearing in mind that Israel representative of Yugoslavia stated, it would be nec­ ed had disregarded the Council's earlier resolutions censur­ essary to fine! an early solution that would be based ,n- ing it, and that Israel's military actions were aggravating primarily on the interests of the countries concerned. es, t- the situation on the Arab-Israel frontier, the USSR A settlement could not, however, be imposed upon the fie delegation believed that the Council should call upon parties, certainly not by measures which inherently rre Israel to take all necessary measures to prevent such carried the danger of further tension. Efforts for the la, actions in the future. and should at the same time settlement of problems could be successful only if the 'he . solemnly warn Israel tuat any recurrence of such action peoples of those countries were approached as inde­ m- might bring about a situation requiring the Council pendent and equal factors primarily interested in the IdI to consider the question of the application of Article 39 solution of the said problems. Such a policy should ni- t. of the Charter. The Council should also call upon Israel find its expression in the unanimity of the Security ra- to observe scrupulously the Armistice Agreement and Council on the case before it. ng the Council's resolutions. 46. The representative of Iran stated that, after a lot 41. Moreover, the Security Council should invite study of the reports of the Chief of Staff, his delegation lad Israel to pay compensation to Syria for the losses considered that the Israel attack of 12 December con­ ice caused by the attack. The Syrian draft resolution, as stituted an act of aggression and a flagrant violation amended by the USSR delegation, fully met those pur­ both of the Charter and of the Israel-Syrian Armistice the poses. The USSR delegation assumed that a stern Agreement. In the present instance, the Council could its warning by the Council would receive serious consid­ not rest content merely by reprimanding Israel in terms 1ge eration by Israel. Such a warning was essential, since similar to those used after the Qibya and Gaza incidents. ing tbe Council's resolutions on the Qibya and Gaza It must face up to its responsibilities quite impartially the incidents had failed to have their due effect upon Israel. and its decision must show fairness and a sense of jus­ lad 42. The Council would not be justified, the USSR tice. The Council should stress in its resolution that its 'ler representative went on to state, in shifting some of the conde..mation of Israel must be regarded as a final rrt. blame for the Lake Tibcrias attack to Syria. The United warning, and that any further act of aggression would as Kingdom representative had mentioned alleged provo­ compel the Council to consider the application of sanc­ ion cations by Syria which supposedly had caused Israel tions in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. :len to retaliate. But the report of the Chief of Staff showed Moreover, since the attack was premeditated, Israel ons that Syrian authorities had not fired at Israel fishing must be held liable for the loss of life and property. boats, and that the 10 December incident, which The Council should also try to reduce, indeed to elimi­ Ner allegedly had led to the Tiberias retaliatory attack, had nate, the areas of friction between the two parties. for been an incident between Israel craft, other than fishing In that connexion. the Chief of Staff had recommended nee boats, and Syrian positions. The Chief of Staff had certain measures ·in his reports, and the Iranian dele­ vith also stated that there had been no Israel or Syrian gation was prepared to give them its support in ons casualties ill the 10 December incident, and that neither principle. 7 - 47. The representative of Iran then said that the Such an offer on the part of Israel would. be an act of sugg'cstions, Council had before it two draft resolutions. His dele­ statesmanship. If such an offer should not be forth­ meut betwe gation approved the three-Power draft resolution, ex­ coming, then his delegation would suggest that the censure I sra cept for certain points on which he proposed to submit Council itself should include, in its resolution, a provi­ solemn and some amendments. His delegation was in no way sion for compensation. some effect, opposed, in principle, to the Soviet draft resolution. sanction acts 52. The representative of Australia said that, in must be tak His delegation wished to submit the following amend­ the opinion of his delegation, even if the alleged provo­ ments (S/3532) to the joint draft resolution: (1) to cation by Syria had been greater, that would not have 58. As t< delete the fourth paragraph of the preamble; (2) to been a justification for Israel's action of reprisal carried delegation, v delete paragraph 4 of the .iperative part and replace it out with such ruthless violence resulting in the loss that the pro by the following: of fifty-six Syrian lives. The Australian delegation was would be mo "Declares that the cornmis sion of such acts in the also concerned with the fact that such a prepared the suggesti future will constitute a breach of the peace within military action could only have been undertaken in compensatior the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter, requiring circumstances that had permitted a prior calculation of such a gestt consideration by the Security Council of the measures the likely reaction of the members of the Council and, the solution provided for ill Chapter VII of the Charter." therefore, it had involved an element of contempt for 59. The I) to delete paragraph :: of the operative part; and the Armistice Agreement and for the United Nations. of Peru, sai (4) to add the 'following new paragraph: 53. An appeal to force in sucl. a situation as had mous agreen "Decides that Israel should pay adequate corr­ existed in the Lake Tiberias region, the Australian as the condet pensation for the loss of and damage to life and representative said, could not contribute to the removal to Israel wi property caused by the attack." of the friction that lav behind the various incidents Council in 01 48. The representative of Belgium said that, accord­ in that area, but could only augment the existing tension to be an agre ing to the reports of the Chief of Staff, the Syrian and create further distrust. Even more important was taken by the the danger that retaliatory military action of that kind authorities had been interfering vith Israel activities 60. On t in the Lake Tiberias area. On the other hand, it had might expand into large-scale hostilities. The Aus­ tralian delegation, therefore, supported the proposal to sentative of ' been established that the Syrian positions had not for neither t fired on fishing boats in the course of the 10 December condemn Israel for that attack, and it had no doubt that the Council must be prepared to consider further of the Coun incident. In reading the impartial account of the facts, termined or it was impossible not to be struck by the disparity action if its authority was again subjected to a challenge of that kind. designated. between the military operations of 11-12 December and propound th the incident alleged to have caused it. Similar opera­ 54. It should be recognized, however, that the ex­ decide how t tions carried out at Qibya and Gaza had led to the planation of such incidents was to be found ill a situa­ same conclusion. The impression was left that a1l three tion that went far beyond the friction over Lake 61. At th attacks were the outcome of a continuous and deliberate Tiberias. Neither party had shown any scrupulous sentative of . policy. The object was to prevent, by large-scale re­ regard for the Armistice Agreement nor any strong of the three­ prisals, the repetition of isolated acts in contravention determination to reduce local tension. which contai: of the Armistice Agreement. That policy was contrary 55. To condemn the offensive military action of ing: "Holds to the basic principles of the Charter, to the General Israel was not, however, to condone the past actions the Israel act Armistice Agreements, to the Council's resolutions and of Syria in interfering with Israel activities on Lake explained tha to the moral principles accepted by all civilized peoples. Tiberias which, under the Armistice Agreement, lay in the light I 49. The representative of Belgium believed that the wholly within Israel territory. While the responsibility Iran, had wa measures proposed by the Chief of Staff were reasonable for the Tiberias incident rested unquestionably with the fairness and he hoped that they would be unanimously approved Israel, the Australian delegation considered it essential contravention by the Council. As to the question of compensation, that a new approach should be made by the parties Syrian interf ... of 11-12 De that was a complex question which, in practice, pre­ to the problem of reducing friction in the area. There­ sented serious difficulties; it would be difficult to take fore it seemed appropriate that, in considering the 62. At t1 any definite stand on the matter until its implications terms of the resolution to be adopted, the Council Syria said th in the present case had been fully determined. should 110t only censure Israel, but should also place the United 50. At the 712th meeting ( 13 January), the rep­ the incident in proper pen pective and point the way grievance in resentative of China stated that the Tiberias attack was to the alleviation of the underlying tension through the north-eastern unjustified c.rher on grounds of law or by military use by both parties of the existing United Nations ported by th and political necessity and should be condemned. Al­ machinery. Chief of Sta though there was unjustified Syrian interference with 56. The representative of Cuba said that his dele­ fishing activi Israel activities on Lake Tiberias, such interference gation deplored the Tiberias incident on the ground craft which, could not be cited as a justificr.tion for a large-scale that the resort to force, except in self-defence, ran rnent, were attack. Fortunately, the Chief of Staff had put before counter to the principles of the Charter; it constituted Defensive A the two parties certain proposals to find a modus uiuendi a violation of the Armistice Agreements, increased the of the Chief and the Council should support him in his efforts to tension prevailing in the area and rendered peaceful prevented fro bring about an improvement in the situation. understanding even more difficult to achieve. The had enjoyed 51. The representative of China then said that his Council would have to take steps to prevent the recur­ 1923. As re delegation would support the three-Power draft reso­ rence of such actions, which were liable to lead to a of the Ul1it~ lution in principle. He had noticed, however, that it state of war with unforeseeable consequences for world as a ten-rnetr had omitted provisions for compensation to the Syrian peace. Accordingly, the resolution 'which the Council lay Wholly Ut families for their loss of life and property and injury. should adopt must be sufficiently objective, well­ of Syria point That omission was unjust and regrettable. Because considered and constructive in Older to pave the way Israel with of the difficulties involved in arranging compensation, to a peaceful settlement. provided und his delegation felt that the ideal solution might be for 57. The Cuban delegation felt that the Council be construed Israel to make a voluntary offer of compensation. should give special attention to the Chief of Staff's boundary. 8 L • ~tlgg'estions, which offered a reasonable basis for agree­ 63. As to the statement of the representative of - :t of irth­ ment between SYria and Israel. The Council must France that Syrian am-eel forces hd no right to estab­ the censure Israel's attack. I n the circumstances while a lish gun positions on the Israel side of the armistice 'ovi- solemn and emphatic warning to Israel might have line, the representative of Syria said that no evidence some effect, it might also, at the same time, tend to had hcen produced to show that Syrian positions had sanction acts of provocation by the other side, and steps been established beyond the demarcation line. The , in must Le taken to prevent that. representative of Syria next pointed out that it was ovo­ according" to a directive of the Chairman of the Syrian­ rave 58. As to the question of compensation, the Cuban Israel Mixed Armistice Commission. with which Israel Tied delegation, while sympathetic to the principle, believed had agreed to comply, that Israelis 'were to keep their loss that the problem was one with which a judicial body fishing boats at a distance of 250 metres from the was would be more competent to deal. Should Israel accept eastern and north-eastern shores of the Lake. 1rOO the suggestion made by China regarding voluntary 64. On the question of compensation, in the absence I 111 compensation, the Cuban representative believed that of agreement on the procedure to be followed, the 11 of such a gesture would create a favourable climate for Syrian delegation would suggest the establishing of a and, the solution of that problem. three-Power commission by the Council to study, in for 59. The President, speaking as the representative ons. collaboration with the Secretary-General, all aspects of of Peru, said that he was gratified to note that unani­ compensation, as well as all ways and means of assess­ had mous agreement had emerged on certain issues, such ment and enforcement. .1ian as the condemnation of the attack, as well as a warning 65. The representative of Syria then went on to state oval to Israel with regard to measures to be taken by the that Israel's conduct had brought about its political ents Council in order to preserve peace. There also seemed and moral excommunication from international life and, sion to be an agreement on the need to support the measures as a persistent violator of the Charter, Israel deserved was taken by the Chief of Staff. to be expelled from the United Nations. Sanctions cind 60. On the question of compensation, the repre­ constituted the only effective deterrent measures against uts­ sentative of Peru felt that there were serious difficulties, Israel. He urged the Council to recommend to Member 1 to States a cessation of economic aid to Israel, say for one iubt for neither the Charter nor the previous proceedings of the Council would enable the procedure to be de­ year, which period would be renewable upon further ther termined or the organ for such compensation to be aggression. The United States, in particular, should :nge designated. At best, the draft resolution could only withhold aid, as it had once before with commendable propound the principle, leaving it to the parties to effect, since it was from the United States that Israel ex- decide how they would exercise their right. derived its greatest economic support. tua­ 66. The representative of Israel, after describing ake 61. At the 713th meeting (17 January), the repre­ the situation in which Israel had to maintain its life .ous sentative of the United Kingdom submitted a revision as a State, said that, as regards Lake Tiberias, Israel ong of the three-Power draft resolution (Sj3530jRev.2) was faced with the choice of either giving up the Lake which contained a new first operative paragraph, read­ as a domain of sovereign Israel enterprise, or of resist­ ing: "Holds that this interference in no way justifies of ing the aggressive threat which Syria openly main­ the Israel action". The United Kingdom representative ons tained. Some members had referred to an apparent explained that the sponsors of the joint draft resolution, ake disproportion between the effects of the Israel response in the light of the statement of the representative of lay and the dimensions of the single incident that had im­ Iity Iran, had wanted to set at rest any doubts regarding mediately preceded it. That, however, was not a true vith the fairness of referring in the preamble to Syrian or valid comparison. The dimensions of Israel's occa­ itial contravention and there was no desire to equate sporadic sional reactions were more than matched by the ac­ Syrian interference on the Lake with the Israel attack ties cumulated effect of repeated incidents, of a constant ere­ ... of 11-12 December. state of tension, of hostility and of aggression main­ the 62. At the same meeting, the representative of tained by its Arab neighbours. Nor had the Arab States ncil Syria said that the contention of the representative of given up their concept of belligerency, despite the .ace the United Kingdom that Israel had a legitimate Council's firm stand against it. Israel's policy was to vay grievance in regard to Syrian activities around the refrain from any acts of force so long as its territory the north-eastern corner of Lake Tiberias was not sup­ and population were not assaulted by force. The rep­ ons ported by the facts. According to the reports of the resentative of Israel said that the discussion on the Chief of Staff, Syria had not interfered with Israel's justification of Israel's response to provocation could ele­ fishing activities, but had engaged some Israel naval best be ended by bringing the provocations themselves md craft which, under the terms of the Armistice Agree­ to an end, and by the Arab States abandoning belliger­ ran ment, were prohibited on the Lake S111ce it was a ency and honouring to the full the Armistice Agree­ ted Defensive Area. It was also clear from the reports ments they had signed with Israel. the of the Chief of Staff that the inhabitants of Syria were 67. As regards the proposals made by the Chief of eful prevented from exercising the fishing rights which they Staff, the Government of Israel had agreed in particular ['he had enjoyed under the Angle-French Agreement of with the proposal concerning the exchange of prisoners, ­ 1923. As regards the statement of the representative and had expressed its willingness to conclude an ) a of the United Kingdom that Lake Tiberias, as well agreement authorizing individuals residing in Syria irld as a ten-metre strip of land on its north-eastern shore, to apply to Israel for fishing permits in Lake Tiberias. reil lay wholly under Israel jurisdiction, the representative In the circumstances, he wished to stress that Syria ell­ of Syria pointed out that the Armistice had not invested had no established right to fish in Lake Tiberias. Israel vay Israel with such jurisdiction. The demarcation line had not automatically inherited the obligations or con­ provided under the Armistice Agreement was not to tracts of the Mandatory Power. Israel might decide reil be construed in any sense as a territorial or political to agree or not to agree to concede those rights to the ff's boundary. use of the waters of Lake T'iberias to Syrians on the 9

L - other side. As regards the 250-metre limit, he wished of the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision • the w to point out that at no time had the Israel Government Organization on the Syrian complaint that an attack claims ever entered into an agreement to abstain from patrol­ was committed by Israel regular army forces against been Iinz or fishing in a certain area of the Lake. Indeed, Syrian regular army forces on Syrian territory on "2. altthat had happened was that in 1951 .Israel .had 11 to 12 December 1955, the w informed the Chairman of the Israel-Syrian Mixed "Noting the finding of the Chief of Staff that 'the words Armistice Commission that, because of the fishing Israel action on the night of 11 to 12 December was positi season at that time, Israel fishermen would work at a deliberate violation of the provisions of the General 250 metres from the shore, but that that distance might "3. Armistice Agreement, including those relating to part ir be changed depending upon the season. the demilitarized zone, which was crossed by the Gover 68. On the question of indemnities, the representa­ Israel forces which entered Syria', milita tive of Israel said that more Israel civilians had lost "Noting also that disputes arising from activities "4. their lives through armistice violations than citizens on Lake Tiberias, as reported by the Chief of Staff, becom of the Arab countries. It would surely be wrong to are no justification for any party to violate the attempt a selective application of. the compensation General Armistice Agreement, 72. Socialist principle to the victims of a particular clash, while "Recalling that the Government of Israel has ;nakinO" no corresponding provision for the scores and that all hundr~ds previously been called upon to take effective meas­ elusion tl of Israelis who had lost their lives at Arab ures to prevent military actions in breach of the hands in violation of the Armistice Agreement. invasion General Armistice Agreements and expressing its violated 69. Referring to the three-Power draft resolution, grave concern at the failure of Israel to comply with between the representative of Israel said ~hat the .expressio!?,s these requests, not only of condemnation, concern and warmng contamed therein "1. Condemns the attack of 11 to 12 December that ano were wholly disproportionate to the action to which as a flagrant violation of the cease-fire provisions of requirin they referred. As to the Soviet draft resolution, his its resolution of 15 July 1948, of terms of the General of the C delegation deeply regretted its unb~lanced appn;lach. Armistice Agreement between Syria and Israel, and tained st It saw in it the unfortunate extension of an attitude of Israel's obligations under the Charter; lieved su previously expressed in the vetoing of two important "2. Calls upon the Government of Israel to refrain area. Th resolutions of the Council. from such military actions in the future, in default restraint 70. At the 714th meeting (18 January), the rep­ of which the Council will have to consider what under di resentative of Yugoslavia said that the existence of other measures provided for in the Charter are the Cou t\VO draft resolutions before the Council and the failure required to maintain or restore the peace; 73. to arrive at an agreed text, despite the general con­ "3. Considers that an established violation of the out that sensus of the Council on the evaluation of the case in the t before it, could not be explained merely by differences General Armistice Agreement entails compensation formu!a~ions: t~at by the party responsible for the loss of and damage during t in specific He considered the degree had not of azreement existmsr m regard to certain elements of to life and property, if any, and that therefore in ~se ~dequate this case Syria is entitled to compensation; The ami the offered an basis for efforts in the a serious direction of finding a generally acceptable solution. On "4. Requests the Chief of Staff to take appropriate steps for the release of prisoners taken in this action; tained a the other hand, one of the elements on which there attempt t still remained a difference of opinion concerned the "5. Requests further the Chief of Staff to pursue sibility f linking of the Israel attack with certain frontier. in­ his suggestions for improving the situation in the armed fo area of Lake Tiberias and to report to the Council .~ cidents in which both parties had been engaged. Since complete! the Council had condemned the policy of retaliation, as appropriate on the success of his efforts; had been the representative of Yugoslavia believed that the link­ "6. Expresses its conviction that a strict respect att~ck the facts ing of the earlier incidents with the Tiberias of the provisions of the General Armistice Agree- .., that, in t would be inconsistent, particularly because, according ment by both parties concerned, their co-operation the joint to the Chief of Staff's report, the 11 December attack with the Chief of Staff in all respects and the full rel.a~i:,e any repet had been preceded by a truce, especially with use of the Mixed Armistice Commission's machinery Arab Sta rezard to Israel fishing activities. It was essential for in the interpretation and application of the said th~ Council to reach a unanimous and generally ac­ 74. T Agreement are prerequisites for the stability and sponsors ceptable decision. The negative consequences of a divi­ security in that area." sion in the Council could not be limited only to the prepared aggravation of disputes in the area, but could easily 71. The representative of Iran said that it would ity, that intensity the divergences between the great Powers as not be appropriate to insert in the three-Power draft quired a well. Accordingly, his delegation wished to submit t.he resolution any reference to interference by the Syrian ultimate followinz draft resolution (S/3536) as a compromise authorities with Israel's activities in Lake Tiberias. in the fo Nat only was there no confirmation of such interference operative text and in the hope that it would render possible Cl unanimous decision. in the Chief of Staff's report, but it also would not be unable to right to treat a large-scale attack by Israel in the same the refere "The Security Council) way as alleged interferences which could have been ties on L "Recalling its resolutions of 15 July 1948, 11 dealt with by the Mixed Armistice Commission. Never­ a differen August 1949 and 18 May 1951, concerning methods theless his delegation, in order to arrive at a unanimous Chief of for maintaining the armistice and resolving disputes decision, would withdraw its amendments in document to thank through the Mixed Armistice Commission, S/3532, and substitute for them the following amend­ promote "Recalling its previous condemnations of retalia­ merits (S/3537) to the three-Power draft resolution text, as a tory actions. as expressed in resolutions of 24 No­ (S/3530/Rev.2) : tive's wis velnber 1953 and 29 March 1955, "1. In the fourth paragraph of the preamble after 75. Tl "Taking into consideration the statements of the the words (Noting also' replace the words 'from the America . representatives of Syria and Israel and the reports reports of the Chief of Staff that there has been' by tention of 10 • I 'vision the words 'without prejudice to the ultimate rights, to lead to further friction and misunderstanding. They attack claims and positions of the parties that reference has were, therefore, prepared to accept an additional provi­ .gainst been made in the reports of the Chief of Staff to' . sion to their draft resolution by which the parties would ,ry on "2. In paragraph 7 of the operative part after be called upon "to arrange with the Chief of Staff for the words 'in the area of Lake Tiberias' insert the an immediate exchange of all military prisoners". The 3.t'the words 'without prejudice to the rights, claims and amended paragraph should not be construed to mean ~r was positions of the parties'. an exchange of one prisoner for another; on the con­ eneral "3. Between paragraphs 7 and 8 of the operative trary, it meant that all prisoners should be returned ng to part insert a new paragraph reading: 'Calls upon the and set free. Iy the Government of Israel to release forthwith all Syrian 76. The representative of the United Kingdom, in military personnel in its custody'. response to a request by the representative of the USSR ivities "4. Paragraph 8 of the operative part would for clarification of the terms of operative paragraph 5 Staff, become paragraph 9." of the three-Power draft resolution, stated that the :e the sponsors were prepared to add the words "under the 72. The representative of the Union of Soviet Charter" in that paragraph between the words "meas­ Socialist Republics stated that the discussion had shown ~1 has ures" and "are required to maintain or restore the that all members of the Council had reached the con­ peace". meas- clusion that Israel had carried out a wholly unwarranted )f the invasion of Syrian territory and that thereby it had 77. At the 715th meeting (19 January), the repre­ :lg its violated both the Charter and the Armistice Agreement sentative of Syria, commenting on the draft resolutions f with between itself and Syria. The Council's decision should before the Council, said that the USSR draft reso­ not only condemn Israel's action, but hold a warning lution, as well as that of Yugoslavia, were nearest to ember that another such action could bring about a situation the merits of the case. The three-Power draft contained ons of requiring the Council to consider applying Article 39 reference to Syrian interference on Lake Tiberias, But eneral of the Charter. The Syrian-Soviet draft resolution con­ Syria's rights of fishing, navigation and irrigation in :1, and tained such a warning, and the Soviet delegation be­ Lake Tiberias and on its shores, ab antiquo as they lieved such a warning would strengthen peace in that were, had been endorsed by international treaties. The ·efrain area. The Soviet delegation also considered that the peaceful exercise of those rights could not be described lefault restraint shown by the Syrian Government in the case as interference in any manner; it would have been an what under cIiscussion should be noted in whatever decision interference on the part of Israel if it were to hamper the free exercise of Syrian rights. As to the question r are the Council adopted. 73. The representative of the USSR further pointed of prisoners, he explained that the Syrian military per­ out that the question of compensation had been ignored sonnel held by Israel had been captured within Syrian of the territory as a result of an attack, whereas the Israel .sation in the three-Power joint draft' resolution, although during the debate the majority of the Council members military personnel in Syrian custody had been seized amage on Syrian territory carrying out an operation of espio­ ire in had not questioned Syria's right to such compensation. The omission of any provision for compensation was nage and subversion. Finally, the draft resolution had a serious defect. Moreover, the draft resolution con­ failed to impose a penalty, to apply sanctions and to ipriate arrest Israel's war-like tendencies. .ction; tained a provision which could be interpreted as an attempt to place on Syria at least part of the respon­ 78. The representative of Cuba said that his dele­ iursue sibility for the invasion of Syrian territory by Israel gation fully appreciated the high principles the Yugo­ in the armed forces. Such an attempt was unwarranted and slav draft resolution was designed to serve, but it still ouncil .. completely incomprehensible, considering that Syria preferred the three-Power draft resolution, particularly had been itself the victim of the attack, as confirmed by the drafting of the fourth paragraph of the preamble. espect the facts reported. Accordingly, his delegation believed .... The deplorable Tiberias incident must not be regarded \.gree- that, in the form in which it was now before the Council, J.S an isolated act, but as a consequence of the situation ration the joint draft resolution could not help in preventing which had existed in the area for quite some time. le full any repetition of attacks by Israel on the territory of Accordingly, his delegation felt that the draft resolution hinery Arab States. should mention the interference with the rights of Israel : said 74. The representative of France said that the on the Lake. Moreover, the operative part of the V and sponsors of the three-Power draft resolution were Yugoslav draft resolution included a paragraph refer­ prepared to accept, in the interests of securing unanim­ ring to the payment of compensation. His delegation would ity, that part of the Iranian amendments which re­ still believed that the Council was a political organ and draft quired adding the words "without prejudice to the not competent to award compensation rights. Syrian ultimate rights, claims and positions of the parties" 79. The representative of the Union of Soviet oerias. in the fourth paragraph of the preamble, as well as in Socialist Republics said that his delegation still main­ erence operative paragraph 7. However, the sponsors were tained that the events preceding the Tiberias incident .iot be unable to accept the Iranian amendment concerning should not have been mentioned at all because the : same the reference to Syrian interference with Israel activi­ Council was not in possession of full information on : been ties on Lake Tiberias, as they could not agree to give them. If, however, the subject was to be referred to in ~ever- a different treatment to o.ie part of the report of the any way, then the Yugoslav draft resolution reflected Imous Chief of Staff. The representative of France wished the actual state of affairs far more accurately than did ument to thank the Yugoslav representative for his efforts to the three-Power draft resolution. Nevertheless, the mend- promote unanimity. He hoped that the three-Power Soviet delegation still considered the Syrian-Soviet .lution text, as amended, would meet the Yugoslav representa­ draft resolution was best suited to the Council's pur­ tive's wish to reach that objective. pose. At the same time, however, it felt that the Yugo­ : after 75. The representative of the United States of slav draft resolution might enable the Council to take m the America stated that the sponsors agreed that the re­ a unanimous decision. Accordingly, he was prepared en' by tention of military prisoners by both parties was bound not to press for the Syrian-Soviet draft resolution to 11 1 • ,'"~'~.,. .' '-I'" "',' . \. ..

-'. .- ~--,~' <:' . ' , . ...' '.' "'"., ,"~. . .' - " I' - be voted on first, and would make no objection to ~enance of the fourth paragraph of the preamble as priority being given to the Yugoslav draft. It 110W stood. rig SO. The representative of Israel said that he had 84. The representative of Australia said that, in view of the progress made in revising the three-Power ing noticed that the representative of Syria had indicated bee draft resolution, which 110W appeared likely to com­ that the people of Syria would continue to exercise 1sr what he called peaceful rights upon the Lake. In that mand general support, his delegation considered that it should retain its priority. Although the sustained of case, he 'would point out that Syria had no rights bet whatever upon Lake Tiberias, Concerning the state­ hostility of Israel's neighbours did not justify the attack ment made by the representative of the USSR in which under consideration, he wished to express his dele­ " the he stated that since its very first days of existence gation's concern at the lack of progress in resolving Israel had pursued a threatening policy towards its the fundamental issues between Israel and its neizh­ " neighbours, the representative of Israel expressed bours. \Vhile the Australian delegation welcomed the Cot regret that such a charge should have been made far modest provisions of the three-Power draft resolution, bre beyond the context of recent incidents on Lake Tiberias. i! deeply regretted that the Council was not in a posi­ wh He read excerpts of statements made by Soviet repre­ tion at the present to take more far-reaching steps and sentatives in the Security Council between 15 May and in that direction. to 14 July 1945, which, in his delegation's opinion, con­ 85. The representative of the Union of Soviet " tradicted what the representative of the USSR had Socialist Republics, in answer to the statement made as stated at the previous meeting. by the representative of Israel, said that the repre­ ofi sentative of Israel had quoted a number of statements Ge SI. As to the Yugoslav draft resolution, the repre­ Syr sentative of Israel believed that its adoption would made by Soviet representatives in the Security Council contribute to an increase of tension in the Middle East. on various occasions during discussions on the Palestine " First, its omission to refer specifically to the Syrian question. He did not wish to alter anything said on the contraventions seriously disturbed its balance and made the Palestine question by Soviet representatives in tion it a most unsatisfactory basis for approaching the th.e past, nor .did he see the need to do so; he merely " future task of pacification in the Lake Tiberias area; WIshed to point out that those statements were in no in t second, it did not can upon Syria, or both parties, to :vay in conflict with what he had said in the present hav respect the Armistice Demarcation Line and the demil­ 1l1stan~e. For very understandable reasons, the repre­ Cha itarized zone; third, his delegation was sure that the sentative of Israel had not mentioned that since then " formulation of paragraph 4 was not to be interpreted such events as the Qibya and Gaza incidents had been obli that only Syrian prisoners should be released, while provoked by I~rael. It had already been pointed out Agr Israel prisoners held in Syria should not. Finally, the that the Tiberias attack was the fourth time in two Lin paragraph concerning compensation was ultra vires years that Israel had appeared before the Council to and unconstitutional, since the General Armistice answer charges of violation of the Charter, as well as of Agreement could not be said to entail anything that the Armistice Agreements. Israel and Syria had not mutally agreed that it should 86. Referring to some points in the statement made entail. by the r~pres.entative of Israel, the representative of 82. The representative of France said that, what­ Yugoslavia said that paragraph 4 of his resolution con­ ever the advantages of the Yugoslav draft resolution cerned military prisoners taken in this action, which might be, the sponsors of the three-Power draft reso­ w~s on the agenda of !he Council. All other military lution could not accept it. Notwithstanding the fact pnsoners.held by b~th SIdes were covered .by paragraph that the three-Power draft resolution had been before 5 requesting the Chief of Staff to pursue hIS suggestions for improving the situation in the area. the Council since 11 January, the Yugoslav draft Chie showed certain differences of stress and balance as ~7.. After a br~ef di~cussion on the question of out' compared with the three-Power draft. It did not priority, the Council decided, by 8 votes to 2, with 1 men mention the Chief of Staff's report concerning inter­ abstention, to grant priority to the three-Power draft use ference by the Syrian authorities; neither did it say resolution. in th anything about the appeal that should be made to the Decisio~: At it! 715th meeting on 19 January 1956, two parties to respect the Armistice Demarcation Line. the Council unanimously adopted the following reso­ C. St The paragraph on prisoners was more restricted than lution (5/3538) : that proposed by the United States delegation. For all those reasons, his delegation believed that the three­ "The 5 ecurity Council, t Power draft resolution, as amended, was preferable to "Recalling its resolutions of 15 July 1948, 11 Y the Yugoslav proposal. August 1949, 18 May 1951, 24 NOvember 1953, 1. Co 83. The representative of Iran said that his dele­ and 29 March 1955, gation was prepared to accept the French representa­ "Taking into consideration the statements of the tive's counter-amendment to the fourth paragraph of represent~tives of Syria and Israel and the reports 88. represe the preamble, as well as the United States amendment of t.he Chief of Sta~ of the Truce Supervision Organi­ to operative paragraph 8, concerning the exchange of zation on the Synan complaint that an attack was queste prisoners. However, that did not mean that his dele­ com.mitted by Israel regular army forces against an earl gation had abandoned the opinion which it had ex­ Synan regular army forces on Syrian territory on lI1g ag pressed concerning the alleged interference by the 11 December 1955, cornpli and th Syrian authorities with activities on the Lake Tiberias. "Noting that, according to the report of the Chief during His delegation realized that the three great Powers of Staff, this Israel action was a deliberate violation States might have allowed political considerations to prevail of the provisions of the General Armistice Azree­ creasin over legal considerations, particularly in a political rnent, including those relating to the demilitarized Palestii body of the United Nations, and that those political zone, which was crossed by the Israel forces which tenance considerations had led them to press for the main- entered Syria, relating 12

• I

imble as "Noting also without prejudice to the ultimate of the Armistice Demarcation Lines had led the United rights, claims and positions of the parties that accord­ States to believe that the parties might not be fully that, 111 ing to the reports of the Chief of Staff there has complying with the provisions of their Armistice .e-Power been interference by the Syrian authorities with Agreements. Despite the earnest efforts of the Chief corn- to Israel activities on Lake Tiberias, in contravention of Staff, the parties had not agreed to proposals which .red that of the terms of the General Armistice Agreement he had put forward to them on his initiative or as a sustained between Israel and Syria, result of the Council's resolutions of 30 March 1955 be attack "1. Holds that this interference in no way justifies (S/3379), 8 September 1955 (S/3435), and 19 Jan­ .11S dele- the Israel action; uary 1956 (S/3538). Since those resolutions had been resolving adopted unanimously by the Council, it should be a :s neigh- "2. Reminds the Government of Israel that the Council has already condemned military action in matter of concern to each of its members to ascertain nned the the extent of compliance being given to them. .solution, breach of the General Armistice Agreements, 1 a posi- whether or not undertaken by way of retaliation, 89. At its 717th meeting (26 March 1956), the ng steps and has called upon Israel to take effective measures Council included in its agenda the item as formulated to prevent such actions; in the letter of the United States. "3. Condemns the attack of 11 December 1955 E Soviet 90. At their request, the representatives of Egypt, mt made as a flagrant violation of the cease-fire provisions Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were invited by .e repre- of its resolution of 15 July 1948, of the terms of the the President of the Council to participate in the dis­ aternents General Armistice Agreement between Israel and cussion without vote. Syria, and of Israel's obligations under the Charter; , Council 91. The Council had before it the following draft Palestine "4. Expresses its grave concern at the failure of resolution (S/3562) submitted by the representative said on the Government of Israel to comply with its obliga­ of the United States: tions; rtives m "The Security Council, e merely "5. Calls upon the Government of Israel to do so "Recalling its resolutions of 30 March 1955, re in no .: in the future, in default of which the Council will ~ present have to consider what further measures under the 8 September 1955 and 19 January 1956, le repre- Charter are required to maintain or restore the peace; "Recalling that in each of these resolutions the nce then "6. Calls upon the parties to comply with their Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization bad been obligations under Article V of the General Armistice and the parties to the General Armistice Agreements nted out Agreement io respect the Armistice Demarcation concerned were reques__J by the Council to under­ ~ in two Line and the demilitarized zone: take certain specific steps for the purpose of ensuring ouncil to that the tensions along the armistice lines should "7. Requests the Chief of 'Staff to pursue his be reduced, vell as of suggestions for improving the situation in the area of Lake Tiberias without prejudice to the rights, "Noting with grave concern that despite the efforts ent made claims and positions of the parties and to report to of the Chief of Staff the proposed steps have not tative of the Council as appropriate on the success of his been carried out, tion con- efforts; "1. Considers that the situation now prevailing n, which "8. Calls upon the parties to arrange with the between the parties concerning the enforcement of military Chief of Staff for an immediate exchange of all the Armistice Agreements and the compliance given aragraph military prisoners; to the above-mentioned resolutions of the Council 5'gestirJns is such that its continuance is likely to endanger the "9. Calls upon both parties to co-operate with the rnainterr-uce of international peace and security; Chief of Staff in this and all other respects, to carry istion of out the provisions of the General Armistice Agree­ "2. Requests the Secretary-General to undertake, ~, with 1 '" ment in good faith, and in particular to make full as a matter of urgent concern, a survey of the various ver draft use of the Mixed Armistice Commission's machinery aspects of enforcement of and compliance with the in the interpretation and application of its provisions." four General Armistice Agreements and the Council's resolutions under reference; try 1956, "3. Requests the Secretary-General to arrange :ng reso- C. Status of compliance given to the General with the parties for the adoption of any measures Armistice Agreements and the resolutions of which after discussion with the parties and with the the Security Council adopted duriug the past Chief of Staff he considers would reduce existing L948, 11 year tensions along the Armistice Demarcation Lines, including the following points: er 1953, 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE ITEM AND ADOPTION OFTHE RESOLUTION OF 4 APRIL 1956 " (a) Withdrawal of their forces from the Armi­ ts of the stice Demarcation Lines; ~ reports 88. In a letter dated 20 March 1956 (S/3561), the "(b) Full freedom of movement for observers i Organi­ representative of the United States of America re­ along the Armistice Demarcation Lines and in the tack was quested the President of the Security'Council to call demilitarized zones and in the Defensive Areas; an early meeting of the Council to consider the follow­ , against " (c) Establishment of local arrangements for the ing agenda item: "The Palestine question: status of .itory on prevention of incidents and the prompt detection of compliance given to the General Armistice Agreements any violations of the Armistice Agreements; and the resolutions of the Security Council adopted :he Chief during the past year." The representative of the United "4. Calls upon the parties to the General Armistice violation States stated that his Government had become in­ Agreements to co-operate with the Secretary-General ~ Agree­ creasingly concerned over the developments in the in the implementation of this resolution; ilitarized Palestine area, which might well endanger the main­ es which "5. Requests the Secretary-General to report to tena~ce of international peace and security. Information the Council in his discretion but not later than one relating to the build-up of armed forces on either side month from this date on the implementation given 13 - • to this resolution in order to assist the Council in It also attached great importance to the provision which confidence in the • considering what further action may he required." enjoined the parties to co-operate with the Secretary­ and capacity to disc 92. The representative of the United States stated General in the implementation of the draft resolution. was being entruste: thac until recently, in the opinion of his Government, The United Natious had a continuing responsibility serious obstacles it progress had bcc'n malic toward the resolution of the relating to the whole of the Palestine question, and it lem by the Secreta Palestine question, and it thought that most of the basic must stand ready to adopt further measures under the all Member State: issues underlying till' uneasy truce in Palestine were Charter should the situation require them. members of the : coming nearer to a solution. That trend unfortunately 96. The representative of Peru said that in dis­ actively to prevent had reccntlv be;u reversed. However, it would be cussing the draft resolution there were three elements lOO. The repre wrong to conclude that the United Nations had failed which must meet with general agreement even in the United States dral in its responsibilities. The alarming situation in the preliminary stages. These -lernents were the need to judgement on the . Palestine area challenged the United Nations to find preserve the armistice, to increase and to make the It only called UpOI new means of arresting the current grave trend. His powers of the Chief of Staff fully effective and to use the present situati Government was convinced that through the United the experience, initiative and knowledge of the problem reference to enforc ::\ations the tensions must he eliminated and the prospect which the Secretary-General possessed through his General Armistice " for pe:>" ~ restored. The United States believed that direct contact with events. His delegation believed that resolutions. It coul in the first instance United Nations efforts should be adoption of the draft resoluuon by the Council would had become neces. concentrated on full compliance with the General add vast moral strength to all tl;e other effective qualified than the Armistice Agreements by Israel and the Arab States measures which might be taken by the United Nations. The draft resolutio and on the carrying out in detail of the resolutions 97. The President, speaking as the representative acceptable to his d of 30 March and 8 September 1955 and 19 January of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 101. The repre 1956. Those resolutions had been adopted unanimously, Ireland, said that his Government welcomed the ini­ to seeking clarifica and if the steps suggested by them had been carried tiative taken by the United States. The Council in the terpretation of oper out the present serious situation would not exist. His past twelve months had passed unanimously three reso­ lution was that th Government 'verefore proposed that the Council should lutions endorsing practical proposals for the reduction General would rec request the Secretary-General to undertake as a matter of tension between the parties. But little had been done parties and the C of urgen;:y a personal investigation of ways and means to give effect to these proposals. This was a matter of framework of the of settling the numerous problems which stood in the grave concern to his Government. A further effort eluded between Eg way of peace and hold discussions with the parties was needed, and it was right that the Council should It was apparently and the Chief of Staff on putting the above resolutions turn to the Secretary-General to undertake this difficult the advisability of into immediate effect. The Chief of Staff had repeatedly task. There were two reasons why it was particularly (b) and (c) of 0 emphasized the primary importance of several of the appropriate for the Council to ask the Secretary­ provisions were n measures proposed in those resolutions, measures which General to accept the additional task proposed. The Agreements. His d deserved an honest chance. He stressed that the draft Council emphasized the great importance it attached ence to demilitariz resolution was not intended in any way to derogate to the mission by asking the head of the permanent operative paragrapl from the over-all responsibility of the Security Council Organization of the United Nations to undertake it. zones and defensiv in the Palestine question. He trusted that all would Secondly, the Secretary-General, because of his daily Armistice Agreeme recognize the good faith of the proposal and would lend contact with the work of the Truce Supervision Organ­ United States draft their full support to the Secretary-General. ization, was in a better position than anyone else to tion, for it raised t' 93. The representative of France, in supporting the act promptly and efficaciously with a view to bringing the Council would United States draft resolution, said that it was clear about arrangements to reduce tension ;.. the area. the Secretary-Gene: that the Council's latest decisions on the Palestine While in the United States draft resolution certain .. Egypt further statee question were not being heeded by the parties and that important objectives had been specifically mentioned, the draft resolution, it had proved impossible to apply the measures designed he had no doubt that the Secretary-General, availing course of the debat to prevent incidents, on which the Chief of Staff had himself of the lead given to him under operative para­ to find means, with been carrying out negotiations. It therefore seemed graph 3 of the United States draft resolution, would Agreements, to eli necessary that a thorough investigation should be do all he could to arrive with the parties at any other armistice lines. carried out on the spot, on behalf of the Council, by similar, practical arrangement to relieve existing 102. The repres the Secretary-General. He warned, however, that too tensions along the armistice demarcation lines in dis­ initiative of the U much should not be expected from the Secretary­ cussion with the parties concerned and the Chief of Council a draft res General's mission. No one, however able, could bring Staff. tions which he reg about a speedy solution of the Palestine problem. 98. At the 718th meeting (28 March), the repre­ nlent of successful 94. The representative of Australia welcomed the sentative of the United States declared that there were interested to know, initiative of the United States in summoning the Council no hidden meanings in the draft resolution submitted General's assignmei and in presenting its draft resolution. The existing by his delegation. It aimed at bringing about discus­ there was a distincti situation not only represented a dang .» to peace and sions between the Secretary-General and the parties of compliance and security but, in addition, was at present perhaps the to find agreed measures for reducing the tension and problems standing ir most serious obstacle to the economic development of carrying out the Armistice Agreements. Its only pur­ that the expression the countries concerned and to the raising of living pose was to prevent war. His Government merely of the General Arm standards ('~ people of the Middle East. It therefore wanted the Council to act promptly in the face of a paragraph 2 request called for positive action by the Council. The problem gravely worsening situation and, in so doing, to indi­ could cover proble of reducing tensions along and in the neighbourhood cate certain steps which the Secretary-General and financial nature. of armistice demarcation lines was largely one of prac­ the parties might take to carry out the provisions of 103, The repres ticallocal arrangements. Progress in that respect would the Armistice Agreements. Its sole and limited purpose further questions at improve the prospects for wider agreement. was the effective functioning of the Armistice. those questions wit 95. The Australian Government supported the pro­ 99. The representative of Cuba said that he would His Government i posal to entrust the Secretary-General with the task vote in favour of the United States draft resolution, extent of complianc of securing compliance with tli- Armistice Agreements, which was a laudable effort to prevent the outbreak and the resolutions and it had full confidence in his ability and devotion. of war in the Palestine area. His delegation had every past year. 14 • , -- confidence in the Secretary-General's good judgement lO-t At the 719th meeting (3 April), the represen­ and capacity to discharge successfully the mission which tative of Jordan said that his Government had a clean was being entrusted to him. However, there were very record of abiding by the General Armistice Agreement serious obstacles in the way of a solution of the prob­ in the face of tremendous difficulties, so that Jordan lem bv the Secretary-General alone. and for that reason ami its regular forces had never been censured by the all Member States, and particularly the permanent Council for violations of that Agreement. The armed members of the Security Council, must co-operate forces of Jordan had taken their positions along the actively to prevent the outbreak of war. front lines not only for defensive purposes but also to lOO. The representative of Belgium said that the carry out their obligations under the General Armistice United States draft resolution did not seek to pass Agreement and to keep order and discipline on the judgement on the substance of the Palestine question. demarcation line. That was an important fact which It only called upon the Secretary-General to survey should be taken into consideration before any sug­ the present situation in that ~lr~a, particularly with gestion for a withdrawal of forces was contemplated. reference to enforcement of and compliance with the Nothing could jeopardize his Government's interests General Armistice Agreements and the Council's latest 1110re than constant instability ·.md disorder. The resolutions. It could not be denied that such a survey creation of tension did not serve Arab interests. For had become necessary and that no one was better that reason, his Government favoured any attempt to qualified than the Secretary-General to undertake it. reduce tension on the demarcation line within the The draft resolution before the Council was generally framework of the Armistice Agreement. It welcomed acceptable to his delegation. the visit of the Secretary-General and would use its 101. The representative of Egypt, with a view best endeavours to facilitate his mission. to seeking clarification, said that his delegation's in­ 105. The representative of Lebanon said that his terpretation of operative paragraph 3 of the draft reso­ Government welcomed the initiative of the United lution was that the "measures" which the Secretarv­ States Government to request the Secretary-General to General would recommend, after discussion with the undertake a mission of inquiry on behalf of the Council. parties and the Chief of Staff, would be within the However, the United States draft resolution had framework of the General Armistice Agreement con­ appeared at first to be open to interpretations not in cluded between Egypt and Israel in February 1949. keeping with the purpose which it was intended to It was apparently for the Secretary-General to assess achieve. For that reason, his Government endorsed the advisability of implementing sub-paragraphs (a). the requests of the Governments of Egypt and Syria (b) and (c) of operative paragraph 3, since those for clarification. His understanding of the draft reso­ provisions were not applicable to all the Armistice lution was that the Secretary-General's mission would Agreements. His delegation considered that the refer­ not go beyond the Armistice Agreements and would be ence to demilitarized zones and defensive areas in limited to the technical requirements for their appli­ operative paragraph 3 (b) related to demilitarized cation. Secondly, any measures which the Secretary­ zones and defensive areas as defined in the General General might contemplate would be adopted only with Armistice Agreements. Operative paragraph 5 of the the agreement of the parties concerned. United States draft resolution also required clarifica­ 106. The President, speaking as the representative tion, for it raised the question of what further action of the United States, said that he was confident that the Council would have to take after examination of there was no basic misunderstanding either by the the Secretary-General's report. The representative of parties to the Armistice Agreements or by the members Egypt further stated that it ':'lJpeared from the text of of the Council as regards the intentions of his Govern­ the draft resolution and the statements made during the ment in submitting to the Council the present draft course of the debate that the aim of its sponsor was resolution. In reply to the questions raised by the rep­ to find means, within the framework of the Armistice resentatives of Syria and Egypt, he quoted from his Agreements, to eliminate tension prevailing on the statements at the two previous meetings of the Council, armistice lines. and added that his. Government saw no other way of 102. The representative of Syria, appreciating the preventing the situation from deteriorating further than initiative of the United States in placing before the by providing for strict compliance with the Armistice Council a draft resolution, requested certain clarifica­ Agreements and the resolutions of the Council referred tions which he regarded as essential for the achieve­ to in the draft resolution. Specifically, the United ment of successful results. His Government would be States draft resolution envisaged that the Secretary­ interested to know, he said, the scope of the Secretary­ General should arrange, after discussion with the parties General's assignment. In that respect he noted that and the Chief of Staff, for measures which were entirely there was a distinction between ascertaining the extent within the framework of the General Armistice Agree­ of compliance and investigation of means of settling ments and the Council's resolutions under reference. problems standing in the way of peace. He pointed out The demilitarized zones and Defensive Areas mentioned that the expression "various aspects" of enforcement in the draft resolution were those which had been of the General Armistice Agreements, which operative defined in the Armistice Agreements. He then submitted paragraph 2 requested the Secretary-General to survey, a corrigendurn (S/3562/Corr.l) to capitalize the initial could cover problems of a political, economic or letters of the words "defensive areas" in operative ( financial nature. paragraph 3 (b). The "various aspects" of compliance 1 103. The representative of Syria listed a series of with the Armistice Agreements which the Secretary­ t further questions and stressed that he had submitted General was being requested to survey, the United I those questions with the sole object of clarification. States representative explained, referred only to matters His Government indeed welcomed a survey of the which would come within the natural purview of the extent of compliance with the Armistice Agreements United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. The and the resolutions of the Council adopted during the arrangements referred to in operative paragraph 3 (c) past year. would of course be arrangements as agreed between 15 ,~ - "2, In para" the parties concerned a11(1 the Secretary-General. The structures so that their basic stability was threatened. the words 'sue Sccretarv-Gcueral naturallv could not amend or set The Government of Israel would draw the attention endanger the 111 aside the undertakings of the parties under the Armi­ of the Secretary-General to some of the questions security' by the stice Agreements. The phrase "in his discretion" in arising from those imperfections, such as whether it ..Paragraph 1 the last paragraph of the draft resolution applied to was fully understood that signatory Governments were the timing of the Secretary-General's report. In adopt­ responsible for preventing crossings of the Demarcation .. 'I. Considc ing his delegation's draft resolution, the representative Lines for any purpose whatsoever; whether any prac­ between the pn of the United States added. the Council would not be tices were being maintained by any iJ"lrty on land or the Armistice r relinquishing its primary responsibility for maintain­ by sea 'which the Council had defined to be in violation to the ahove-n ing international peace and security. In the light of of the General Armistice Agreements; whether all is unsatisiactorj the Secretary-General's report and the situation then parties were fully aware of their mandatory obligations "3. In parag prevailing, the Council would have to consider whether under the articles calling for conferences of revision the words 'aft any further action was required and what that action or review of the Armistice Agreements. It might also concordance'. might be. However, his Government hoped that further be asked whether adequate facilities had been provided "In sub-para] action concerning compliance with tl.e the Armistice for access to the Holy Places and to cultural and edu­ words. 'and in t Agreements and the relevant resolutions of the Council cational centres and whether there were any concentra­ 113. In connc would not be necessary. tions of troops in any Defensive Area which might eSSR representa 107. The representative of Yugoslavia stated that, have exceeded the limits prescribed in the relevant Iensive Areas in while the present situation in the Middle East did not articles of the Armistice Agreement. preted as broader call for dramatic moves or hasty actions, further efforts Ill. The representative of the Union of Soviet might be considc were required to reduce existing tensions and to Socialist Republics stated that his delegation shared affairs of the Str strengthen the gf'neral fabric of peace in that vital the view that the Council should keep incessant watch parties concerned, area. Any such action should be taken through the on the way its decisions, were being carried out, espe­ draft resolution tl United X ations, since the Palestine question had been cially in those areas in which a threat to the main­ capitalized. in on the responsibility of the Organization for vcars and tenance of international peace and security might easily to the areas def the armistice svstem in that area had been established arise. The VSSR delegation, therefore, had no ­ might meet the si under the auspices and with the aid of the United jection to the idea expressed in the United States draft be premature at I :\ations. At1\' such action would also have to have the resolution, provided that it was basically acceptable manner followed i agreement and acti ve co-operation of the parties con­ to all the parties concerned. The Soviet delegation also part and it wouk cerned. It was upon the restraint and realism of the considered it appropriate that the Council should invite the reports of the parties, and on their determination to use only peaceful tile Secretary-General to conduct an investigation into of Staff before gi methods, that peace and stability in that area would the extent to which both the Armistice Agreements situation prevailii depend. and the relevant Council resolutions were bein; carried above amendment 108. The practical task before the Council was to out by the parties and also empower him to seek agree­ port the United ~ ensure a fuller measure of compliance with the Armi­ ment with the parties concerning the adoption and 114. The repr stice ...\greements and the relevant Security Council implementation of such measures as might be needed that, if the Counc resolutions and a more satisfactory working of the to reduce tensions along the Armistice Demarcation and actions of oth armistice svstem itself. In the view of the delegation Lines. However, his delegation supported the view would be much t of Yugoslavia, there could not have been a better choice that all measures to relieve the existing tensions in would not advan. than the Secretary-General to undertake that mission. the Palestine area should bp. carried out only by agree­ which was the re]; \Vith the above understanding of the draft resolution, mcnt with the parties concerned and with due regard cation lines betwe his delegation would support it. to their interests. That was to be stressed because 115. The Prcs 109. The representative of China said that, as a recently certain western Powers had developed a pro­ of the United St: result of the clarifications offered by the representative nounced tendency, under the pretext of preventing an was engaged in a of the United States, the limitations within which the Arab-Israel war, to plan for direct armed intervention ..., taristic or unilate in the affairs of the Arab States, in violation of the proposals contained in the draft resolution operated 116. The rept were made clear. Those proposals dealt exclusively sovereign rights of those States. The representative of the USS R referred to various press reports con­ initiative taken 1 with the Armistice Agreements and with those Council worsening situatio resolutions which concerned the implementation of cerning measures taken and planned by those western Powers for separate action with regard ing number of in those Agreements. His delegation was. in full sympathy had made it imp with that objectivcaud would support the draft reso­ to the Middle East. As far as the USSR dele­ gation knew, the countries concerned were not tension in that are lution; it also welcomed the assurances given in the of the Chief of St course of the discussion by the representatives of Egypt, being consulted with regard to possible action in the Middle East that might be taken by the western Powers. had proved ineffec Jordan and Lebanon of their Governments' full co­ However, it wou operation with the Secretary-General. The USSR delegation, therefore, reiterated its belief that any action affecting the interests of the countries situation and to _ 110. At the 720th meeting (3 April), the repre­ of the Middle East must be discussed and decided war in the Midd sentative of Israel s.tated that his Government had with the participation of those countries and with due create suspicions c often advocated fuller utilization of the office and regard to their interests. No decisions affecting peace tion, The delegat person of tlie Secretary-General for the examination and security in that area should be taken outside the the peaceful inten of international tensions. In that respect, the Secretary­ United Nations. believed that the G General would continue to receive the full co-operation itself to be swayer 112, In view of the above considerations, and of his Government. In the opinion of his delegation, 117. The draft it was necessary to do more to preserve security in taking into account the statements of the parties con­ cerned, the USSR delegation considered that the United explained by the the Middle East than was envisaged in the draft reso­ constructive appe, lution, although that might well serve as, a valuable States draft resolution could be improved by the following amendments (S/3574) : compliance with contribution, The Government of Israel advocated early merits and so to measures to restore the operation of the General "1. In the first paragraph of the preamble, mention the demarcation li Armistice Agreements to their full integrity. There was also the Security Council's resolutions of 24 Novem­ There could not b reason to fear that wide gaps had arisen in their Ler 1953 and 29 IVlarch 1955. 16 - "? In paragraph 1 of the operative part replace Secreturv-t;t·!lt'ral to undertake the mISSIOn envisaged the words 'such that its continuance is likely to in the Jraft resolution. Although his delegation was endanger the maintenance of international peace and mindful of the difficulties in the way of a permanent I' I security' by the word 'unsatisfactory', solution of the Palestine question, i: was nevertheless "Paragraph 1 will then read: convinced that if the Secretary-General could carrv out "'1. Considers that the situation now prevailing the measures laid down in the draft resolution: that between the parties concerning the enforcement of would make it possible to remove the remaining the Armistice Agreements and the compliance given obstacles in the Wa) of a permanent solution. to the above-mentioned resolutions of the Council 118. The representative of France, after referring is unsatisfactory.' to the statement of the representative of the VSSR, "3. In paragraph 3 of the operative part, replace declared that Xlember States had the right to consult the words 'after discussion' by the words 'after with each other on topics of common interest. Such concordance'. consultations had not caused or aggravated tension; it was rather the tension itself that had made the "In sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3, delete the consultations necessary. words. 'and in the Defensive Areas' " 119. The President, speaking as the representative 113. In conncxion with those amendments, the of the C nited States, said that the amendments sub­ l'SSR representative noted that mention of the De­ mitted by the USSR delegation (S/3574) were not fensive Areas in the draft resolution could be inter­ onlv unnecessarv but also die: not seem to be desirable. preted as broadening" the functions of inspection and The first amendment went into the past without ac­ might be considered as intervention in the domestic complishing anything constructive thereby. Th~ second affairs of the States concerned. If acceptable to the was fallacious. because it was clear that failure to parties concerned, the United States amendment to its comply with three unanimous resolutions of the Council draft resolution that the words. "Defensive Areas" be was ';Iikely" to endanger peace. As regards the third capitalized, in order to specify that the terms applied amendment, it was obvious that there must be a to the areas defined in the Armistice Agreements, discussion before there was concordance. might meet the situation. He also noted that it would ~f be premature at present to define the situation in the 120. The representative .he United States then manner followed in the tirst paragraph of the operative said that operative paragraph 3 of his delegation's part and it would be better for the Council to have draft resolution clearly indicated that agreement of the the reports of the Secretary-General and of the Chief parties concerned would be necessary for the adoption of Staff before giving its views on the nature of the of measures for reducing tensions. The words "in the situation prevailing in the Palestine area. \Vith the Defensive Areas" as now included in the draft reso­ above amendments, the USSR delegation would sup­ lution made it clear that it meant areas so defined in port the United States. draft resolution. the Armistice Agreements. The objectives of the United States resolution were clear beyond any shadow of a 114. The representative of the United Kingdom said doubt. The draft resolution was addressed to a clear and that, if the Council were to debate the responsibilities present danger, and designed to dispatch the Secretary­ and actions of other countries in the Middle East, there General to the area so as to reduce the growing tension. would be much to be said. However, such a debate The text of the draft resolution was sufficient in its would not advance the present aim of the Council present form and it was his Government's belief that which was the relaxation of tensions along the demar­ the Governments in the area were prepared to accept cation lines between Israel and the Arab States. the resolution as it was. Therefore, as the sponsor of 115. The President, speaking as the representative the draft resolution, his Government believed that it of the United States, denied that the United States was desirable not to accept amendments. was engaged in any improper activity, whether mili­ 121. At the 72lst meeting (4 April), the repre­ taristic or unilateral, or both, in the Middle East. sentative of Egypt expressed his satisfaction with the 11G. The representative of Iran welcomed the clarifications of the draft resolution offered by the initiative taken by the United States. The ever­ United States representative. He said that members worsening situation in the Palestine area and the grow­ of the Council, particularly the representatives of the ing number of incidents along the demarcation lines United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, Tran <...iJd the USSR, had had made it imperative to take steps to reduce the expressed general agreei.lent with the representative tension in that area. Moreover, despite the best efforts of the United States 011 the purpose of the Se 'etary­ of the Chief of Staff, the existing armistice machinery General's mission, The representative of the JSSR had proved ineffective under the present circumstances. had proposed certain amendments and some of those However, it would be a mistake to exaggerate the amendments had corresponded to the questions raised situation and to speak of the imminent possibility of by the Egyptian delegation. The representative of war in the Middle East. That would unnecessarily Egypt renewed the pledge of his Government's full create suspicions and would only aggravate the situa­ co-operation with the Chief of Staff and with the tion. The delegation of Iran had 'ull confidence in Secretary-General in his new mission, and added that the peaceful intentions of the Arab leaders and also Egypt bad already accepted the proposals made by believed that the Government of Israel would not permit the Chief of Staff after the Council's resolution of 29 itself to be swayed by extremist elements. March 1955 and had similarly accepted the Secretary­ 117. The draft resolution before the Council, as General's proposal to reduce tension in the demilitarized explained by the United States representative, was a zone of El Auja, constructive appeal for fresh efforts to ensure better 122. The representative of Syria also expressed his compliance with the provisions of Armistice Agree­ appreciation of the explanations given by the repre­ rnents and so to remove the causes of friction along sentative of the United States, He emphasized that the demarcation lines and in the demilitarized zones. the mission to be entrusted to the Secretary-General There could not be a better qualified person than the was not a matte: only of investigation, but of finding 17 - ways and means of implementing the Armistice Agree­ could judge whether the continuance of the situation and practical Cl ments. The Secretary-General could, for example, sug­ was likely to endanger the maintenance of international to anv rcsolutii g<.'st measures that would ensure the immunity of the peace and security and 'what measures should be taken rnitec! States demarcation lines against any violation by armed forces. as a consequence, Passing such a judgement on the operative parng Secondlv, the Secretarv-Geueral would find cases of situation now might also provide an excuse later on dangerous, and violations in the demilitarized zones. There were stand­ for measures by-passing' the Council. The Soviet 130. The re ing violations which were not of a temporary nature. amendments improved the draft resolution by making that the USSR For instance, on Lake Tiberias the Secretary-General its terms more clear and definite. Thev also made clear reflected a dist would find a naval force against the express provisions the position of the Council on this important question. of harmouv the of the General Armistice Agreement. The problem was For those reasons. he requested favourable consid­ the Conncii did not so much to inquire into the violations but to remove eration of the USSR amendments, recent resolutio them in every physical sense and to propose measures 12(i. The representative of Peru said that his dele­ the Chief of St. to that end. The representative of Syria then noted gation had already expressed its general approval of to 19-1-7, if not with approval the mention of the four Armistice the United States draft resolution and was prepared unsatisfactory ..\grccmcnts in the first operative paragraph of the to vote ior it. Under the draft resolution, the Secretary­ ~ecret'lrY-(~l:nel draft resolution. He added that Svria had always ad­ General was to study the fads objectively and was to 131. The n vocate.l that, although there were four Armistice ;\gree­ endeavour to arrange with the parties after discussion ments, vet the armistice itself was indivisible. and that the USSR with them, which necessarily implied their agreement, wording of the ( any violation in one sector was in reality a violation certain measures for reducing tension in the Palestine of'the whole. Similarly, a situation of tension in one with other l'''p area. Thus, the draft resolution would r commend an was to be pretc area became a situatioll of tension in all the areas of objective survey of the facts and a soli.uon by agree­ the armistice. dr-scription of tl ment of the parties, as peace by conciliation was would not pres. 123. Referring to the USSR amendments, tile rep­ obviously better than one which was imposed from resentative of Syria stated that they would improve outside. 132. The re port the USSR the original text of the draft resolution and facilitate 1.27. Referring to the USSR amendments, the rep­ the task of the Secretary-General. His Government since it would resentative of Peru said that his delegation was glad formitv with th appreciated the step taken by the United States in to note that the USSR delegation was not insisting submitting the draft resolution to the Council, as it with .\rticIe 3 on its amendment concerning clarification of "Defensive with the views had brought back the Palestine question to the United Areas". He hoped that the USSR delegation would Nations, where it rightfully belonged. area and h;JU tl also not press its amendment asking for inclusion of impression that 12-1-. At the same meeting, the representative of the two resolutions of the Council in the preamble of the pending- the Se Union of Soviet Socialist Republics said that he draft resolution. If that amendment were to be accepted, hand, he was regretted that the United States could not accept his then reference would have to be made to a great many modifications \\ delegation's amendments. The proposal of the United other resolutions of the Council. The representative explanations gi\ States to capitalize the words "Defensive Areas" met of Peru also thought that the use of the word "unsat­ States. the purpose of the USSR amendment on that point, isfactory" to describe the situation prevailing in the which he would nut press if the United States version Palestine area would not only make the wording of 133. The r were preferred by the other members of the Council. the draft resolution very vague but also would not Socialist Republ As regards the USSR amendment to operative para­ justify the Council in taking such an important step statement that t graph 3, the representative of the USSR stated that, as sending the Secretary-Genera! to that area. Opera­ unjustified suspi after the clarification given by the representative of tive paragraph 1 of the draft resolution, in the opinion press release to . the United States, there appeared to be no difference Kingdom and of the delegation of Peru, did not explicitly invoke R, of substance, and he therefore failed to understand Article 39 in Chapter VII of the Charter. It merely to decide on th why the amendment, which made the point clearer by described a situation the continuance of which would prevent hostiliti US~ using the words "after concordance" should not be be likely to endanger peace. The statement did not tive of the acceptable to the sponsor of the draft resolution. Simi­ commit in any way any member of the Council to States belonged larly, the United States draft resolution had referred subsequent action. were holding' tl Council itself w only to some Council resolutions and had failed to 128. At the 722'1d meeting (-J. April), the repre­ include other relevant resolutions, in particular those situation in that sentative of Israel said that a one-sided appraisal of submitted bv h of 2-1- November 1953 and 29 Xlarch 1955. The state responsibility for past violations of the Armistice of compliance with the latter also required verification. the representati Agreements hac! been made by a representative of one delegation's am 125. The representative of the USSR then pointed of the parties. As a result of the speech of that party, out that the end of operative paragraph 1 of the draft a misconception might also have arisen as to the 13-1-. The P resolution contained a quotation from the Charter, character of the General Armistice system. There were the United Stat which would show that the Security Council attached four Armistice Agreements, not one. Each of them the draft resolu great importance to the situation in the Palestine area had a separate text and a separate group of signatories the Council. Tl and that the continuance of that situation might en­ and each was registered separately with the United harm in having danger international peace and security. The USSR Nations. in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter, an effort to ma delegation wondered on what grounds the Council Similarly, there were four demarcation lines and the sentative added could pronounce itself in that manner. It had not yet draft resolution had accurately referred to them in of the words "D heard the parties directly concerned nor did it have the plural. The representative of Israel added that his 3 (b) was not rectification. Pu a report from the Chief of Staff. The Council thus did Government could not accept the idea that any State United States cl not have enough facts at its disposal to take a decision could be concerned with the operation of an agreement resolution objec to state that the situation in the Middle East was to which it was not a signatory. by-paragraph v likely to endanger the maintenance of international 129. The representative of the United Kingdom stituted a whol peace and security. The Council should, therefore, said that his delegation was not prepared to support as a whole. confine itself to the statement that the present position the USSR amendments. Regarding the proposal to in the Middle East was unsatisfactory. After receipt mention two earlier resolutions of the Council on the Decisions: A of the report of the Secretary-General, the Council Palestine question, he said that, in the present limited the USSR ante 18 • 11 and practical context, it seemed unnecessary to refer preambh' 'M1S rejected by 2 votes (Cuba, Peru) to 1 ....': II to any resolutions other than the three listed in the ( USSR), tcitl: S abstentions. The USSR amendment _., I, 11 Cnitl,c.l States proposal, As for the amendment to to the first opcratirc paragraph was rejected by 3 votes I, e operati"e paragraph 1, the situation in the area was (.·ll/stralia, Cuba, Peru) to 2 (USSR, )'l/[1osladcz), ~ n dangerous, ami 110t merely unsatisfactory. toith 6 abstentious. The first part of the USSR amend­ It' t 130. The representati ve of France also believed IIICllt to opcrotirc parayn1ph 3 tms rejected by 2 votes g that the USSR amendments were unnecessary. They (Cut.a, Peril) to 1 (USSR), tcith 8 abstentions. I' retlccted a distrust inconsistent with the atmosphere The United States draft resolution 7,('as adopted I. of harmony that had prevailed in the discussion. If 111/(11/ i1110 11 sly. the Council did not limit itself to referring to the three 135. The representative of the Union of Soviet recent resolutions providing for negotiations through Socialist Republics explained that his delegation had the Chief of Stall', it might well find itself going back voted in favour of the United States draft resolution f to 19'+7, if not further. To term the situation merely hearing in mind its acceptability to a 11 the parties 1 unsatisfactory would scarcely justify sending tlle interested and the clarificntions that the sponsor of Secret'! ry-Cl'n~ral IQ the area. the draft resolution had offered, especially that all ) 131. The representative of Australia considerc-l measures provided for in the resolution would be 1 that the USSR auieudme.us did not improve the actual carried out within the framework of the Armistice wording of the draft resolution. In particular, he agreed .\greements and with the agreement of the interested with other ....prcscntatives that the original wording parties and of the Council. was to be preferred to the term "unsatisfactory" as a 136. The representative of the United Kingdom description uf the situation. He hoped that the USSR stated that a lessening of existing tension along the would not press its amendments. demarcation lines was a matter of real urgency and 132. The representative of Yugoslavia would sup­ the United Kingdom delegation hoped that the Secre­ port the USSR amendment to operative paragraph 1, tary-General would receive wholehearted co-operation since it would bring that paragraph more into con­ frum all parties concerned, without which the mission formity with the spirit of Chapter VI and particularly could not succeed. with Article 3.+ of the Charter. It coincided broadly 137. At the same meeting, the Secretary-General with the views of his delegation on the situation in the said that he shared the grave concern felt about the area and had the advantage of dispelli-tg any possible problems of the Middle East by members of the Council impression that the situation was being prejudged and, under the circumstances, he would not hesitate pending the Secretary-General's mission. On the other to assume the responsibility which the Council had hand, he was not convinced that the other USSR wished to put on his office. The scope of the Council's modifications were really necessary in view of the request was well indicated and had been clarified explanations given by the representative of the United further in the course of the debate. The specific respon­ States. sibility placed by the request on the Secretary-General 133. The representative of the Union of Soviet was entirely in line with the character and obligations Socialist Republics, referring to the French delegation's of his office. It obviously neither detracted from nor statement that the USSR amendments were based on added to the authority of the Secretary-General under unjustified suspicions, quoted from a State Department the Charter. The extent to which exploration of ways press release to show that the United States, the United of reducing tension along the demarcation lines 'was Kingdom and France were engaged in consultations possible and likely to yield lasting results necessarily to decide on the nature of the action to be taken to depended on the willingness of all the parties concerned prevent hostilities in the Middle East. The representa­ to co-operate fully with him in a joint effort inspired tive of the USSR pointed out that none of the three bv mutual confidence. He trusted that he could count States belonged to the Middle East, and that they 0;1 such co-operation, as well as on the restraint of all were holding their consultations at a time when the who were interested in a good outcome, but were not Council itself was considering measures to improve the parties to the conflict. situation in that area. In view of that and of the reasons submitted by his delegation at the previous meeting, 2. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL PURSUANT TO the representative of the USSR maintained that his THE SECllRITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION OF 4 APRIL delegation's amendments were necessary. 1956 13-1-. The President, speaking as representative of 138. Following the adoption by the Security the United States, said that his delegation hoped that Council of its resolution of 4 April 1956 (S/3575), the draft resolution would be adopted unanimously by the Secretary-General left for the Middle East on the Council. The United States Government saw no 6 April for consultation with the Governments con­ harm in having consultations with other countries in cerned on the questions raised in the resolution. He an effort to maintain peace. The United States repre­ visited the countries concerned from 10 April to 3 May sentative added that the capitalizing of the initial letters 1956, and in that period transmitted to the Council of the words "Defensive Areas" in operative paragraph texts of communications relating to the negotiations 3 (b) was not an amendment, but a typographical that passed between him and the authorities in Eg-ypt rectification. Pursuant to its right under rule 32, the ancl Israel (5/358-1-, S/3586 and S/3587), as ,veIl as United States delegation as the original mover of the a progress report (S/3594) on his mission. On 9 May, resolution objected to a Soviet request for a paragraph­ he submitted the report (S/3596) on his mission to by-paragraph vote, holding that the resolution con­ the Council. stituted a whole and should be adopted or rejected as a whole. 139. In his report of 2 May (Sj359-1-), the Secretary­ General explained that. in addition to survevinz and Decisions: At the 727nd meeting on 1- April 1956, reporting on the state of compliance with .the'" four the USSR amendment to the first paragraph of the General Armistice Agreements and the resolutions 19 referred to in the Council's resolution of ..j. April 1956, general significance. First, as regards the status of the and arranging with the parties for the adoption of meas­ Truce Supervision Organization and its functions, a whether that ures to reduce tensions along the Armistice Demarcation tendency had emerged to regard the LT nited Nations defence and t Lines, he considered his mandate to include negotia­ observers merely as impartial investigators of the facts with the Ch tion on his part to get the parties to re-establish fullest in cases of complaints made to the Xlixed Armistice Agreement 01 possible corupliauce with the Armistice Agreements. Commissions, thus sn hordinating the Truce Supervision was thus un It had to him been obvious that no measures for estab­ Organization exclusively to those Commissions and in accordance lishing full compliance with procedural or substantive limiting or eliminating their function, established by of the reserv clauses of the General Armistice Agreements would be the Security Council resolution of 11 August 1949 could be dete fruitful or lasting unless firmly anchored in a reaffirrna­ (S/1367), of protecting, together wit;1 the authorities the reserve I tion of the duty of all parties concerned to observe a concerned, compliance with the cease-fire clauses by as not to brit cease-lire. The Secretary-General reported that, during the prevention of incidents. Following a study with all cease-fire ass the period of his stay in the Middle East, his negotia­ the Governments concerned, they had stated that, on reserves did tions for such assurances had in all cases been concluded the basis of the Armistice Agreements and the Council's repeatedly ha with positive results. \ Vith that background he had resolution of 11 August 1949, it was their intention to studied with the Governments concerned the possibility consider favourably proposals by the Chief of Staff 145. Not, of re-establishing full compliance with the various concerning the activities of the observers aiming at ligations, the other clauses of the General Armistice Agreements. facilitating compliance with the General Armistice on the genen The wish to reach such full compliance had been shared Agreements. That should render possible such free­ spread amens by all parties. dom of action and movement for the observers as lay, party to feel 1·-10. The Secretary-General, in hisreport of 9 May in his view, within the terms of the Armistice Agree­ might represe (S/359G), gJve a full account of the outcome of his ments and the Securitv Council's decisions. That iree­ incident, wha mission, with reference to the terms of his mandate dom should prove sufficient for the proper functioning which was st as contained in the Council's resolution of 4 April 1956. of the Truce Supervision Organization. In specific The Governm By way of general observations, he noted that the cause cases and for specific , arrangements for freedom best to keep for the present state of non-compliance was not an of action and movement for the observers had been minimize or unwillingness on rhe part of Governments to carry out agreed upon with the Governments concerned; an It was also f their obligations. The disquieting situation character­ account of such arrangements was included in the for the world ized by widespread non-compliance was to be explained report. Secondly, as regards "local arrangements" and to incidents by political and practical circumstances. The demarca­ "withdrawal of troops" mentioned in the resolution faith in the c tion lines had, in many cases, no bases in history or in of 4 April 1956, it had been agreed with the Govern­ other party. the distribution of population or private property and ments concerned that they would favourably consider _ ~6. On t had to be observed in a situation of great political proposals by the Chief of Staff of the Truce Super­ Secretary-Gen tension. As the frequency of incidents increased, a vision Organization for local arrangements-including ances from a chain of actions and reactions had been created. Some separation of forces-wuere and when he considered will fully to c such arrangements to be called for. The Governments uncertainty as to the scope of the obligations under Agreements, 0 the Armistice Agreements had, in his view, also con­ concerned had also declared that they had no objection the independe: tributed to the unfortunate development. He considered in principle to the following other possible local two points of it essential to eliminate to all possible extent that un­ arrangements: (a) erection of physical obstacles; (b) of the Armisti certainty. A tendency to regard the Agreements, includ­ marking of demarcation lines and international fron­ the two Gov ing the cease-fire clauses, as entities might explain tiers; (c) Local Commanders' Agreements; and (d) to the Secret a feeling that a breach of one of the clauses, other than joint patrols. cases of cross the cease-fire clause, might justify action in contra­ 143. In the section of his report entitled "The of violence in vention of that clause. However, the very logic of the cease-fire", the Secretary-General explained his under­ the Secretary Armistice Agreements showed that infringements of standing of the unconditional nature of the cease-fire assurances th other articles could not serve as a justification for an assurances given by the Governments concerned. Such the parties to infringement of the cease-fire article. Compliance with assurances, he stated, gave a basis for strict orders be regarded a the cease-fire article could be conditioned only by similar by Egypt and Israel-notified to him on 18 April cease-fire assu compliance of the other party. The cease-fire was a 1956-which served to relieve the situation along the given similar stipulation in the Agreement independent of the other Gaza Armistice Demarcation Line. Written uncondi­ active measure articles. The Secretary-Gene:aI, therefore, asked the tional assurances in regard to the observance of a cation line and Governments concerned for assnrances-i-which he re­ cease-fire had been received from Jordan on 26 April, The second p ceived in every case-that they would observe the from Lebanon on J. May and from Syria on 2 May non-complianc obligations under the cease-fire clause unconditionally, 1956. By letters c:ated 26 April and 3 May 1956, the in the so-calle provided the other party complied with that same Secretary-General had received the required assurances the status of w clause, reserving only their right to self-defence under from Israel relating to its Armistice Agreements VIII of the Article 51 of the Charter. respectively with Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. 147. The t 1-1-1. The Secretary-General further noted that all 144. Pointing out that the assurances he had re­ the direction concerned having agreed that the target for the p:-esent ceived were all given within the general framework Agreements h effort should be general and full compliance with the of the Charter, and that their unconditional nature discussed with Armistice Agreements in their entirety, and with, fur­ was restricted only by the reserve for self-defence, the be solved by ther. the acceptance of the cease-fire clauses as estab­ Secretary-General stated that a party which had given parties becaus lishing independent obligations within the framework such an assurance was covered by its reserve for self­ ordinated unil of the various Agreements, a basis was laid for the defence in cases of non-compliance by the other party fidence in the studv of a balanced return to the full implementation with its obligations under the Charter, or under the each of them of other clauses, and-through that process and there­ Armistice Agreement, only if and when such non­ similar unilate after-how best to protect compliance. compliance was found to be a reason for the exertion cea~e-fire had 142. In his general observations, the Secretary­ of the right of self-defence as recognized in Article 51 all sides had. General also touched upon two other questions of of the Charter. The Security Council alone could decide for the achieve 20 unilateral mov - :he a whether that was the case or not. The reserve for self­ 148. Procedural measures to help achieve full C0m­ illS defence and the significance it might give to compliance pliance with the Armistice Agreements formed also cts with the Charter, with other clauses in the Armistice the subject of consideration by the Secretary-General. Ice Agreement or with relevant Security Council decisions, There was not in all cases an adequate functioning 011 was thus under the sole jurisdiction of the Council, machinery for resolving disputes concerning the inter­ nd in accordance with the rules established. The meaning pretation, or implementation, of the obligations assumed by of the reserves for self-defence in a concrete situation by the parties under the Agreements. A further weak­ 49 could be determined only by the Council. Furthermore, ness was that no procedure had been established for res the reserve for self-defence should be so understood the handling- of conflicts covered bv the general clauses by as not to bring it in conflict with the substance of the in the Armistice Agreements, such as the right to all cease-fire assurances themselves, and accordingly the security and freedom from fear of attack established on reserves did not permit acts of retaliation which by the'first article of the several Agreements. He felt .l's repeatedly had been condemned by the Council. that, whatever solution might be consic'ered, it was to desirable to avoid organizational innovations and to lff 145. Notwithstanding the re-established legal ob­ work within the framework of the United Nations. at ligations, the cease-fire arrangements depended also Ice on the general situation. With fears of attack widely 149. Regarding the state of standing non-compliance -e- spread among the peoples, anything which caused a with articles VII and VIII of the Armistice Agree­ ry, party to feel that it was exposed to increased risks ment between Egypt and Israel, the Secretary-General ~e- might represent a threat to the cease-fire, and any single reported that in the demilitarized zone centred on El ,e- incident, whatever its background, might, in a situation Auja and in the area between the line El Quseima-Abu ng which was still far from stable, have the same effect. Aweigila and the demilitarized zone, forces of Israel fie The Governments concerned should, therefore, do their and Egypt were present or reported to be in occupation, )111 best to keep the situation under such control as to and the position was that both parties were or must en minimize or eliminate the risk of further incidents. be presumed to be, to a greater or lesser extent, vio­ an It was also for the Governments, for the public, and lating articles VII and VIII. During his mission, the he for the world opinion to avoid giving such interpretation Secretary-General had received specific assurances nd to incidents as, without justification, would weaken from both sides of their willingness to establish full on faith in the cease-fire or discredit the goodwill of the compliance with articles VII and VIII, within the Tl- other party. framework of a full return to the state of affairs en­ let _ ~6. On the question of general compliance, the visaged in the Armistice Agreement. A plan for the er- Secretary-General reported that he had received assur­ re-establishment of compliance with the two articles, ng ances from all the Governments concerned of their prepared by the Chief of Staff, and to which as such ed will fully to comply with all clauses of the Armistice no objection had been made by the parties, was in­ Its Agreements, on the basis of reciprocity, but recognizing cluded in the report. High priority should be given on the independent position of the cease-fire clause. On to the implementation of the two articles because a .al two points of high importance within the framework return to the state of affairs envisaged thereby would b) of the Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel, be a major contribution in allaying fears of attack now In- the two Governments had given specific assurances to be found on both sides. i) to the Secretary-General. The first point covered all 150. In the next section of his report dealing with cases of crossings of the demarcation line and acts local arrangements needed to observe and assist com­ he .. of violence in connexion therewith, and on that point pliance with the substantive provisions of the Armistice ~r- the Secretary-General had asked for and received Agreements, the Secretary-General outlined a number Ire assurances that active measures would be taken by of proposals made by the Chief of Staff. The proposals ch .... the parties to prevent such occurrences, which must had, in considerable measure, been accepted by the .rs be regarded as in contravention of the spirit of the Governments concerned. The Secretary-General en­ ril cease-fire assurance. The Government of Jordan had dorsed the views of the Chief of Staff that they would he given similar assurances of its intention to enforce be adequate if fully implemented. The proposals were Ii- active measures to prevent all crossings of the demar­ immediately important mainly in three areas, namely, a cation line and actions of violence connected therewith. along the demarcation line in the Gaza area, in the 'il, The second point referred to the state of standing El Auja demilitarized zone and the Defensive Areas ay non-compliance from both sides which was to be found of the western front, and on Lake Tiberias, he in the so-called El Auja area and the defensive areas, :es the status of which was established by articles VII and 151. In the Gaza area, arrangements for the estab­ Its VIII of the Egypt-Israel Armistice Agreement. lishment of six fixed United Nations observer posts on each side of the line were to be formally adopted 147. The time sequence between various steps in in the Mixed Armistice Commission, but had been 'e- the direction of full compliance with the Armistice accepted by Egypt and Israel; the activities of the rk Agreements had been studied and questions arising observers would be additional to those provided for re discussed with Governments, The problem could not in the General Armistice Agreements. The United he be solved by any explicit agreements with any two Nations observers were to have free access by a pre­ en parties because it was essentially a question of co­ viously designated route to those positions at any If- ordinated unilateral moves inspired by greater con­ time and the Truce Supervision Organization might ty fidence in the possibility of a peaceful development, send patrols along the demarcation line between the he each of them provoked by and, perhaps, provoking observation posts when required. As regards proposals n- similar unilateral moves on the other side. Once the for local arrangements in the Gaza Area, referred to in on cease-fire had proved effective, and as the stands of the resolution of 4 April 1956, for the prevention of in­ 51 all sides had-been clarified, the road should be open cidents and detection of violations, their present status de fo~ the achievement of full implementation by related was as follows: (a) the proposal that the parties with­ t1l111ateral moves. draw their armed forces back from the demarcation 21 - line to eliminate or reduce provocation to open fire 156. The Secretary-General drew attention in his port give had been accepted by Egypt without reservations, report to two special questions that had confronted world com while it was understood that Israel would refrain from him during his mission. Israel had raised the question Expressin sending patrols up to that line except to protect agri­ of Egyptian interference with Israel shipping through sibility of cultural operations of its settlers or to prevent in­ the Suez Canal as treated by the Security Council in continuous cursions. If the line taken by Israel proved inadequate, a resolution of 1 September 1951 (Sj2322), and also General c the Secretary-General would find it necessary to renew of interference in the Straits of Tiran. The attitude p cbably s consideration of the matter; (b) Israel was prepared of the Secretary-General had been that the Suez ques­ ing proble to consider a proposal from the Chief of Staff for the tion, as adjudicated by the Council, was not a question to the w erection by the Truce Supervision Organization of a of compliance with the Armistice Agreement in the peace of physical obstacle along the demarcation line, while sense of his mandate. For that reason he had not dis­ Egypt had agreed to erection of obstacles along selected cussed the issue with Egypt, nor evaluated the legal portions of that line. At present the Chief of Staff reasons presented by Israel that the blockade repre­ did not propose to submit any specific proposals for sented a case of standing non-compliance with article I 160. the erection of such an obstacle; (c) both parties had of the Armistice Agreement. He recognized, however, Security agreed to the placing by the Truce Supervision Organi­ that in an approach looking beyond the immediate port of tl zation of conspicuous markers along the line; (d) problems which, as he understood the resolution of sentatives after a sufficient period of tranquillity, the Chief of 4 April 1956, the Council had in mind, the question were invit Staff proposed to suggest resumption of negotiations raised by Israel should come under consideration in sentative for an arrangement, including a Local Commanders' the light of the Council's finding in its resolution of circulated Agreement, to maintain security along the line; (e) 1 September 1951 that the blockade was incompatible following joint patrols did not now appear opportune, nor did with the Armistice regime, as that regime put an end taining ne it seem likely that they would be accepted by either to a state in which Egypt could avail itself of belligerent preamble c party. rights. "The 152. As for the El Auja demilitarized zone and 157. The other question drawn to the Secretary­ "Rec the Defensive Areas, of the western front, proposals General's attention by Jordan, Lebanon and Syria was 3575) a Israel's scheme for the diversion of the Jordan River. for the free movement of United Nations military ob­ "Havl servers to certify compliance with article VII of the On that question, the Secretary-General had found that his formal stand under the terms of his mandate must General Armistice Agreement had not been objected to by the Security parties and should go into effect as soon as reciprocal be to request the parties to abide by decisions con­ action had been taken by the parties to establish cerning the matter taken by the Security Council or "Noti compliance with articles VII and VIII. under the Armistice Agreement between Syria and and ann Israel, and to emphasize that in cases where different given to 153. In the area east and north-east of Lake views were held as to the interpretation of a Council the Arm Tiberias, fixed observation posts had been proposed on resolution, the Council alone could interpret its reso­ the cease the eastern and north-eastern shore, to be manned by lution. Apart from legal considerations, the Secretary­ "Notil United Nations observers with the right to move in a General found that the strain feared in case of a resump­ the adoj special United Nations boat to those posts and to any tion of the Jordan River diversion work should not operative point where difficulties requiring their intervention be permitted to endanger the cease-fire, but he felt, resolutio might arise. Syria had accepted the proposals, but not with equal strength, that it was the duty of the parties "Notis Israel, which considered such a boat on Lake Tiberias to the present effort to avoid any action that might and an observation post on Israel territory as both General create an added strain. " uncalled-for and as derogating from the rights. it claimed resolutio over the whole Lake and territory to the north and 158. In concluding his report, the Secretary-General and 19 east thereof. The Secretary-General had declared that stated that he devoted all his attention to the limited the mea he found it necessary to maintain those proposals. task-as called for by his mandate-of re-establishing r.. its resol first of all a cease-fire and, based on the cease-fire, a complete 154. The Chief of Staff also proposed to invite state of full compliance with the Armistice Agreements. "Cons early resumption of negotiations for a Local Com­ Consequently, he had left aside those fundamental which a manders' Agreement between Jordan and Israel cover­ issues that so deeply influenced the situation in the basis of ing the whole of the demarcation line between them. Middle East. It was his own view, confirmed by the "Belie Both parties had now signified that they were prepared discussions he had had in the region, that the re­ tions if f to agree to a clause specifying that, when desired by establishment of full compliance with the Armistice either party, a United Nations observer should be the gain Agreements represented a stage that had to be passed mission present at meetings between local commanders and area in order to make progress possible on the main issues parties 0 commanders of the two parties. which he had considered to be outside his mandate. "1. C 155. Apart from the special arrangements nego­ 159. Following on the efforts made during his parties 0 tiated for the El Auja, Gaza and Lake Tiberias areas, mission, the initiative now lay in the hands of the "2. D Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, in implementation Governments parties to the Armistice Agreements. It Agreeme of the recognition of the status and functions of the was the Secretary-General's feeling that there was a already a Chief of Staff and military observers, had also given general will to peace, and that that will should be should c assurances that the principle of freedom of movement fostered and encouraged, not by attempts to impose the Chie for military observers within the relevant areas would from outside solutions to problems of vital significance Supervis be freely recognized. Israel's position was that it would to everyone in the region, but by a co-operation which further p continue to afford United Nations ohservers the same facilitated for the Governments concerned the taking of 4 Apr degree of freedom of movement inside Israel which all unilaterally of steps to increase confidence and to demon­ of that residents or visitors to Israel normally enjoyed, and strate their wish for peaceful conditions. The value of .\.rl11istic also such freedom of movement as might be required the efforts and their effect would depend first of all on in respect to specific posts and patrols around the the goodwill and the actions taken by the Governments "3. D Gaza area. directly concerned, and in the second place on the sup- United 22 • in his port given to those Governments by others and by the areas along the Armistice Demarcation Lines, in the J .onted world community, as represented by the United Nations. Demilitarized Zones and in the Defensive Areas as 't Expressing the belief that there now might be a pos­ il·~.:.· estion defined in the Armistice Agreements, to enable them , ' rough sibility of starting a chain of reactions leading to a to fulfil their functions; reil in continuous improvement of the situation, the Secretary­ "4. Endorses the Secretary-General's view that I: cl also General concluded that, while the final settlement was the re-establishment of full compliance with the i :titude p cbably still far off, even partial solutions to the harass­ Armistice Agreements represents a stage which has ques­ ing problems. of the region would make a contribution to be passed in order to make progress possible on .estion to the welfare of the peoples concerned and to the the main issues between the parties; n the peace of the world. ..5. Requests the Chief of Staff to continue to It dis- carry out his observation 01 the cease-fire pursuant 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY­ legal to the Council's resolution of 11 August 1949 and repre­ GENERAL BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL to report to the Council whenever any action under­ ticle I 160. At its 7231'd meeting (29 May 1956), the taken by one party to an Armistice Agreement con­ vever, Security Council commenced consideration of the re­ stitutes a serious violation of that Agreement or of iediate port of the Secretary-General (S/3596). The repre­ the cease-fire, which in his opinion requires im­ ion of sentatives of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Israel medis.e consideration by the Security Council; iestion were invited to take part in the discussion. The repre­ "6. Calls upon the parties to the Armistice Agree­ ion in sentative of the United Kingdom, who had on 25 May ments to take the steps necessary to carry out this ion of circulated a draft resolution (S/3600), submitted the resolution, thereby increasing confidence and demon­ oatible following revised draft resolution (S/3600/Rev.l) con­ strating their wish for peaceful conditions; ~n end taining new formulations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the gerent preamble and of operative paragraph 2: "7. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his good offices with the parties, and to report to the "The Security Council, Security Council as appropriate." .etary­ "Recalling its resolutions of 4 April 1956 (S/ 161. In an introductory statement, the Secretary­ ia was 3575) and 11 August 1949, River. General paid tribute to the co-operation shown by the "Having received the report of the Secretary­ parties concerned during the course of his mission. Id that General on his recent mission on behalf of the ~ On the basis of his experience in the Middle East, he must Security Council (S/3596), s con­ had stated in the conclusions to his report that the reil or "Noting those passages of the report (section III present situation in that area was such that the previous a and and annexes I-IV) which refer to the assurances chain of events might be broken. He trusted that all fferent given to the Secretary-General by all the parties to parties would try to find what contributions they might .ouncn• '1 the Armistice Agreements unconditionally to observe now make unilaterally in order to re-establish quiet ; reso­ the cease-fire, and order. retary­ "Noting also that progress has been made towards 162. The representative of the United Kingdom .sump­ the adoption of the specific measures set out in recalled that the primary object of the Secretary­ Id not operative paragraph 3 of the Security Council's General's mission had been to reduce tension along le felt, resolution of 4 April 1956, the Armistice Demarcation Lines, and it was gratify­ parties "Noting, however, that full compliance with the ing to note that the Secretary-General and the parties might General Armistice Agreements and with the Council's had been able to make progress in agreeing on prac­ resolutions of 30 March 1955, 8 September 1955 tical measures towards that objective and in putting ;eneral and 19 January 1956, is not yet effected, and that some of them into effect. Moreover, the Secretary­ limited the measures called for in operative paragraph 3 of General had been able to secure a firm reaffirmation lishing '" its resolution of 4 April 1956 have been neither by the parties of the cease-fire and, with minor ex­ -fire, a completely agreed upon nor put fully into effect, ceptions, the parties had fully lived up to their assur­ rnents. "Conscious of the need to create conditions in ances. The progress achieved had produced a detente, mental which a peaceful settlement on a mutually acceptable a better atmosphere. The United Kingdom delegation in the basis of the dispute between the parties can be made, had no doubt that the personality of the Secretary­ by the "Believing that it will help to create such condi­ General and the prestige of his high office, as well as he re­ tions if further progress is now made in consolidating the valuable relationship he had been able to establish mistice the gains resulting from the Secretary-General's with the leaders in the Middle East, had contributed passed mission and towards full implernentaion by the very greatly to that improvement. The Council was issues parties of the Armistice Agreements, duty bound to play a continuing and constructive part toward further general improvement. First, the parties :late. "1. Commends the Secretary-General and the ng his should agree on further practical measures, in concert parties on the progress already achieved; with the Secretary-General and the Chief of Staff of of the "2. Declares that the parties to the Armistice .nts. It the Truce Supervision Organization, to improve the Agreements should speedily carry out the measures situation along the Armistice Demarcation Line. But was a already agreed upon with the Secretary-General, and uld be more than that was needed: the Council should now should co-operate with the Secretary-General and aim at obtaining full compliance by each party with impose the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce ficance the Armistice Agreements. His delegation was in agree­ Supervision Organization to put into effect their ment with the; Secretary-General's view that full com­ which further practical proposals, pursuant to the resolution taking pliance with the Armistice Agreements represented of 4 April 1956, with a view to full implementation a stage which had to be passed in order to make lemon­ of that resolution and full compliance with the alue of progress possible on the main issues between the parties. . all on .\rmistice Agreements: Nevertheless, the Council ought not to lose sight of nments "3. DeClares that full freedom of movement of the need for a mutually acceptable settlement of the le sup- United Nations observers must be respected in all differences between Israel and its Arab neighbours, 23 - The United Kingdom delegation therefore believed that General and to prevent the recurrence of a situation Secret the Council should first take advantage of the successful such as prevailed earlier in the year. Therefore, it concer contacts between the Secretary-General and the parties seemed fitting and wise to call upon the Secretary­ upon <.1 in order to consolidate the gains that had already been General to make further efforts with the parties to designe made and to keep up the momentum towards truly that end. Agreen peaceful conditions. The Council should. however, con­ 166. The representative of Belgimr said that the continu fine itself to fostering that process and should not force report of the Secretary-General had brought out the the An it upon the parties concerned. The Council should also important point that non-compliance with the Armistice dom cl work towards putting into c"ect practical measures Agreements was not due to the unwillingness of the points already agreed upon, and getting still more of such parties concerned but in the main to the vagueness of but he measures agr eed and pelt into efrect. the obligations laid down in those Agreements. The stage ir 163. In view of the above, the United Kingdom negotiators had therefore endeavoured to remedy that 170. delegation thought that the most helpful step for the vagueness, in particular by stating precisely the bearing Secret Council to take would be first to ask the Secretarv­ in the circumstances of tlv- principle exceptio non Armist General to make himself available to the parties with adinipleti contractus. The Secretary-General had rec­ fully t those objects in view. His delegation's draft resolution ommended certain practical measures which should about did not propose a new mission or a new mandate, n01 prevent the recurrence of incidents on the demarcation betwee that the Secretary-General should .mmediately return lines, and the parties concerned had stated that they Secret to the Middle East or take any specific action. All that would have no objections of principle to any of those begun was being proposed was that the Council should measures. The future, he said, lay with those Govern­ be ac request the Secretary-General to continue his good ments. The United Kingdom draft resolution wisely suppor offices with the parties in order to help them make provided for the continuation of the Secretary-General's resoluti progress towards full implementation of the Council's good offices with the parties concerned, an.i his dele­ resolution of 4 April and full compliance with the gation believed that the parties would want to make 171. Armistice Agreements. the best possible use of the Secretary-General's help. last oc 164. The representative of France said that the 167. The representative of Australia stated that his critical present improvement in the Palestine situation was delegation attached particular importance to the assur­ it two and ta due to the goodwill of the parties and to the inexhaust­ ances which the Secretary-General had obtained from the Ch ible patience and faith of the Secretary-General. The the parties for the unconditional support of the cease­ by sen Secretary-General's great achievement was that he had fire. As a result of the efforts of the Secretary-General represe understood the extreme dangers of the process of and the goodwill of the parties, an opportunity had been States distintegration which had set in in the ten-year old presented to reduce very greatly the danger of war in course. structure erected by the United Nations to safeguard Palestine and to prepare the way for a gradual approach ments peace in the Middle East. He had made the parties to the examination of the deep-seated differences be­ justifie concerned understand the justified fears which he had tween Israel and its neighbours. His delegation wel­ showin felt, and had secured their agreement in an att.rnpt comed the United Kingdom draft resolution and would cerned. to bring that situation to an end. Moreover, in accord­ support the general ideas contained therein. The rep­ resentative of Australia stressed the need for economic gation : ance with the terms of the Council's resolution of resoluti 4 April, the Secretary-General had obtained agree­ development in the area, which had been hindered by to poin1 ments in principle on most measures recommended by the continuation of the Palestine dispute. The co­ the Council and on the others he appeared to have every operation of the parties was sought, he said, not only 172. chance of achieving success. The French delegation in measures to reduce the risk of war, but also in represe: had found the progress satisfactory and would support creating the conditions to enable their people to share Secreta the United Kingdom draft resolution. It was construc­ in the benefits of economi.c advancement. four A tive in scope and indicated that the steps taken towards 168. The representative of Iran stated that, as a was an the establishment of a lasting peace must be followed result of the efforts of the Secretary-General and the cance 0 by further steps; the results achieved by the Secretary­ goodwill shown by the parties, tension 'lad been appre­ the Mi General should not be jeopardized. ciably reduced on the demarcation lines and assurances there 165. The representative of the United States said had been given regarding the cease-fire. Those assur­ beginni that his delegation would support the United Kingdom ances had been honoured and effective measures had concer draft resolution as it was the logical outgrowth of the been taken to ensure the integral application of the 173. Council resolution of 4 April and of the mission under­ Armistice Agreements. However, the positive results Secreta taken by the Secretary-General, in which he had that the Secretary-General had achieved would have point t achieved significant success. The report of the Secretary­ to be supplemented by other measures envisaged in his ments General showed that progress could be made towards report. In that connexion, he stressed the importance promis the full functioning of the Armistice Agreements. The of ensuring complete freedom of movement for Un.ited in the United States' interest, as indicated in the previous Nations observers and of carrying out the proposals had als debates of the Council, was in ensuring that the United of the Chief of Staff. The representative of Iran also was a Nations efforts should be concentrated on full com­ believed that full compliance with the Armistice Agree­ tions th pliance with the Armistice Agreements by the parties ments must be regarded as a preliminary condition of Agreer and on the carrying out in detail of the Security any equitable settlement of the Palestine question and and the Council's resolution of 30 March and 8 September 1955 that any hasty attempt to impose solutions of the prin­ and 19 January 1956. The basic aim of the United cipal questions at issue between the parties might prove 174. Kingdom draft resolution was to emphasize the Coun­ premature and prejudicial to the final settlement of that no cil's wish that the agreements already concluded should the question. conferr be speedily put into effect and that remaining meas­ 169. In the light of those considerations, the rep­ Howev ures called for in the Council's resolutions should be resentative of Iran declared that his delegation would lution adopted without delay. Thus, the task of the Council support any draft resolution which expressed the Secreta 'was to consolidate the gains made by the Secretary- Council's appreciation of the progress achieved by the would 24 .uation Secretary-General and the parties, requested the parties 175. The President, speaking as the representative J10, ' ore, it concerned to carry out the measures already agreed of Yugoslavia, said that the Secretary-General's report \~, retary- upon anc' to give effect to other practical proposals embodied the same new approach to the Palestine ques­ ties to designed to secure full compliance with the Armistice tion that had characterized the consideration and i Agreements, and requested the Secretary-General to adoption of the Council's resolution of 4 April. The I rat the continue his efforts to secure the full implementation of Secretary-General, in his report, had given a valuable ut the the Armistice Agreements. Regarding the United King­ analysis of the armistice system within the broader rnistice dom draft resolution, he was in agreement with the setting of the whole Palestine question and had re­ of the points which coincided with those he had mentioned, defined the active role of the United Nations with less of but he might have certain suggestions to make at a later regard to the situation in the area. He had also empha­ s. The stage in the discussion. sized the active role ancI the responsibility of the parties ly that themselves, both with regard to the implementation 170. The representative of Cuba agreed with the of the cease-fire and of the Armistice A~reements and iearing Secretary-General that, for the re-establishment of the (l non with regard to the general improvement of conditions Armistice Agreements, it was essential for the parties in the area. One of the major factors in the success Id rec- fully to comply with their provisions and to bring should of the Secretary-General's mission was the co-operation about an improvement in the general political relations e):1.L 'r1ed by the parties concerned. rcation between the parties concerned. He hoped that the rt they Secretary-General's mission to the Middle East had 176. Another important characteristic of the Sec­ [ those p'1ry-General's t' begun a new stage in which more lasting results might r report and of his activities in the .overn- be achieved. He added that the Cuban delegation 1\ l;e -lie East, said the representative of -{ugoslavia, wisely supported in principle the United Kingdom, draft w,' °leir pI ofound realism, The Secretary-General had :neral's resolution. not Lrierl to do all things at once but had moved grad­ s dele- 171. The representative of Peru said that, on the ually and prudently. and had, therefore, recommended , make advancing through a series of "related unilateral help. last occasion when the Council had considered the critical situation in the Palestine area, it had had before actions" by the Governments of the area. Thus, foun­ hat his it two alternatives: either to reaffirm its jurisdiction dations had been laid to achieve a satisfactory working assur- and take all the measures to which it was entitled under of the armistice system. The Council should endorse i from the Charter; or to seek to bring the parties together what had already been achieved and urge the parties cease- to take further steps, especially those recommended by ieneral by sending the Secretary-General to the area as its representative. As a result of the initiative of the United the Secretary-General and the Chief of Staff. The Id been Secretary-General should also be requested to pursue war in States delegation, the Council had chosen the second course. The impartial report and the relevant docu­ his efforts in conjunction with the parties and give such proach assistance as might be necessary. In all this, however, .es be- ments submitted by the Secretary-General had fully justified the trust placed in him by the Council, besides the Council must strive to maintain unanimity, that n wel- is, consensus within the Council and concordance of would showing the co-operation extended by the parties con­ cerned. The representative of Peru added that his dele­ the parties. That unanimity had been largely responsible le rep- for the progress made so far. onornic gation accepted in principle the United Kingdom draft resolution, reserving, however, its position in regard red by 177. The representative of Syria commenting first he co- to points of detail. upon the Secretary-General's report, said that the )t only 172. At the 724th meeting (31 May 1956), the Secretary-General had found it imperative to re-estab­ 1 • 3.,:;() In representative of China said that, as a result of the lish the Armistice as a starting point. At the time of his ) share '" Secretary-General's mission to the Middle East, the mission, the situation in the Palestine area had been four Armistice Agreements had been reinforced. That highly explosive. He had, therefore, first concentrated his efforts on obtaining pledges for strict observance t, as a ." was an important achievement considering the signifi­ cance of those Agreements for the future of peace in of the cease-fire and, fortunately, his efforts in that nd the direction had met with success and had brought about appre- the Middle East and also the fact that the situation there had greatly deteriorated in March and at the a marked relaxation of tension along the demarcation trances lines. The Syrian Government attached great impor­ assur- beginning of Ap;:;1. The co-operation of the parties concerned had also contributed to that success. tance to the cease-fire declarations. However, in his es had letter of 2 May 1956 to the Secretary-General, the of the 173. The representative of China noted that the Prime Minister of Syria had made it clear that the results Secretary-General, in his report, had emphasized the declaration of cease-fire had been given within the i have point that the cease-fire clauses in the Armistice Agree­ framework of the United Nations Charter and the reso­ . in his ments stood by themselves and were not to be com­ lutions of the Council, with particular reference to rrtance promised or conditioned by violations of other clauses Article 25 of the Charter and the Council's resolution United in the Armistice Agreements. The Secretary-General of 27 October 1953 dealing with the question of the oposals had also pointed out that observance of the cease-fire River Jordan. The relation that existed between the m also was a Charter obligation, irrespective of the interpreta­ cease-fire and the diversion of the River Jordan called Agree- tions that might be put by the parties on the Armistice for that citation. The main issue was the inviolability tion of Agreements. He had not tried to attain the impossible of the demilitarized zone, and to divert the River on and and thereby jeopardize what was possible. Jordan was to liquidate the demilitarized zone. e prin- t prove 174. In the circumstances, his delegation had felt 178. The representative of Syria then said that the lent of that no new resolution was necessary, as the mandate Secretary-General had refused to subordinate the Truce conferred on the Secretary-General had not expired. Supervision Organization exclusively to the Mixed le rep- However, in so far as the United Kingdom draft reso­ Armistice Commissions. The freedom of movement of would lution aimed at the consolidation of the results of the observers along the demarcation lines and in the :d the Secretary-c;eneral's mission, the Chinese delegation demilitarized zones was not a matter of choice or by the would support it. acceptance. It was a power aimed at the prevention 25 - and prompt detection of violations. The Secretary­ the Council at the request of the United States dele­ 183. The situ General's report in that respect was very clear. The gation. It was envisaged that the Secretary-General's sentative of Isra Secretarv-General had informed the Council that. while mission would protect the Armistice and nothing more. destruction of a Syria had accepted the measures proposed with regard It would be proper if the Council were to adopt a the public discu tu the eastern shore of Lake Tiberias in IlIlp;,,;1I1entation resolution that took note of the Secretary-General's avowed purpose of the Council's resolution of 19 January 1956, the report, thanked him for his efforts, and called upon issues involved ir other side had not agreed to the movement of a United the parties to implement the measures proposed by the was under cons Nations patrol boat on Lake Tiberias, nor to the estab­ Chief of Staff, with a further request to the Secretary­ stances, the dele lishment of a military observer post, considering the General to continue his, efforts to implement the pro­ important that th measures as a derogation from its sovereignty. In that visions of the Council's resolution of 4 April 1956. ness of the need t connexion, he recalled that the whole question of sov­ Such a resolution would foster and not force the settlement on a ereignty had definitely been suppressed in the Armi­ situation that had been gained by the Secretary-General. made. To achie stice Agreements. The representative of Syria drew negotiate at the special attention to the statement in the report that the 181. The representative of Israel said that his Gov­ anv or all of its demarcation lines had in many cases no basis in history ernment had brought all the elements of tension be­ problems. or in the distribution of population or private property. tween Israel and its neighbours under careful scrutiny in discussions with the Secretary-General during his 184. The rep That was significant, as it touched the fundamental ernment, in ace issues involved in the Palestine question. mission. Although those discussions were not free from divergence of judgement on specific issues, and the with efforts tow on the demarcat 179. At the i25th meeting (31 May), the repre­ Secretary-General's report contained points on which sentative of Syria, commenting on the United Kingdom Israel had its reservations, nevertheless, the attitude of Armistice Agree draft resolution, said that as it stood it tended to de­ his Government had been one of understanding and Secretary-Genen stroy the constructive work done by the Secretary­ co-operation. The 1110St important result of the Sec­ Council. It agre General, and undermined his report. For example, retary-General's mission had been that all the parties as defined by th paragraph 3 of the preamble noted only a portion of concerned had given assurances unconditionally to to the proposals the report dealing with the assurances given by the observe the cease-fire. The Government of Israel retary-General ; parties to observe the cease-fire, whereas it should have further any othe attached great importance to the unconditional char­ taken note of the whole report and not just one minor acter of the cease-fire assurances. The representative tension along th part. The Secreta ry-General had dealt at length with itarized zones. I of Israel, therefore, could not accept the contention of the '1"P~tion of cease-fire assurances, including such the representative of Syria that the obligation of Syria ance of his Go> matters as the self-defence reserve, the general frame­ regarding the cease-fire would be affected by any action pointed out that work outlined by the Arab Governments and the sion of the J or taken concerning the utilization of the waters of the climate in which the cease-fire was working, but all increase tension. River Jordan. The Secretary-General had rejected any those matters were ignored in the draft resolution. The on the situation qualification of the cease-fire obligations, other than reference in paragraph 6 of the preamble to a "settle­ that specified in Article 51 of the Charter. 185. As regs ment on a mutually acceptable basis" appeared even lution, the repr more dangerous. The United Nations had decided on 182. The representative of Israel said that a cease­ gation, in order repatriation of the refugees, on full internationalization fire agreement, indispensable as it was, could not be have preferred tl of Jerusalem, and on a territorial plan for Palestine. regarded as an adequate substitute for peace. His dele­ General's report Israel had opposed all those decisions. To advocate gation therefore agreed that further progress should be 1956. For exam the idea of a "mutually acceptable" solution must in­ made in consolidating the gains resulting from the Sec­ far beyond the evitably lead to a reversal of all the resolutions pre­ retary-General's mission with a view to the full im­ could be interpr viously adopted by the General Assembly and the plementation of the Armistice Agreements. Agreement that the text 0 Security Council. A new start would have to be made of the parties and full reciprocity were, however, essen­ Anglo-Soviet d and everything since 29 November 1947 would have tial conditions for the success of such measures. The enough jnstifics to be written off. establishment of agreed local arrangements had no resolution. 180. As regards the operative part of the draft doubt its due place in the above process, but local 186. The rej resolution, the representative of Syria said that opera­ arrangements were subordinate to the political decision that paragraph tive paragraph 4 restricted the endorsement by the of the signatory parties themselves to maintain the clarification. In Council to one single view of the Secretary-General Armistice and to prevent unauthorized crossings of sponsor of the regarding the re-establishment of full compliance with the demarcation lines. He added that the relationship Egypt wondere the Armistice Agreements. To select just one view and of the demarcation lines to demographic or property amended accord ignore the others destroyed the general balance of the questions had no bearing whatever upon the duty of of the Secretary Secretary-General's report. The Council should con­ the parties to respect their immunity and to avoid any towards full im centrate on the measures, not on the views, that were transgression of them. Their status was absolute until of 4 April an necessary to re-establish the Armistice Agreements. changed by mutual consent. Full compliance with the Agreements. The item before the Council, he pointed out, was of Armistice Agreements, the objective of the Security 187. The re a restricted character. The request to C'e Secretary­ Council's current efforts, meant that each party was Government, wl General to continue his good offices, contained in entitled to its security and freedom from fear of attack servance of the paragraph 7, was vague and obscure. The United King­ by the armed forces of the other. Full implementation ofli..:,:~ tion hy drawin dom representative had stated that the good of the Agreements required the abolition of belligerent the grave conse mentioned in that paragraph did not constitute a new practices, on land or by sea, which had been ruled by River diversion mandate or a mission. In the light of that explanation, the Security Council to be inconsistent with the Arrni­ After referring the representative of Syria failed to understand what, stice, and was incompatible with the invocation of a the Secretary­ under that paragraph, the Secretary-General would be state of war, either in theory or in practice. Moreover, reiterated the p expected to carry out. Under the Council's resolution respect for the Armistice Agreements involved an that any unilate of 4 April, the Secretary-General had a definite man­ understanding of their character as steps towards per­ mean not only date and it would be understandable if he were to manent peace and, accordingly, of the obligation of 27 October 19 continue under the same mandate. The item under dis­ the signatories to extend their scope by negotiation indicated by t cussion had been initially inscribed on the agenda of of a final settlement. alone could int 26 ~r:: 183. The situation in the Middle East, the repre­ - 188. The representative of Jordan then said that .' sentative of Israel continued, was ~,ill very grave. The the Secretary-General had not gone beyond the defined i. destruction of a Member State was still held up in scope of the Council's resolution of 4 April and it was

i!~ the public discussion of several Arab States as an because of that clear understanding of the specific , avowed purpose of national policy. None of the main nature of his mission that he had achieved considerable issues involved in the establishment of normal relations success and had avoided complications and suspicions was under constructive treatment. In those circum­ that might otherwise have arisen. In the light of that stances, the' delegation of Israel felt that it was vitally success, the normal course for the Council, in consider­ important that the Council should express its conscious­ ing a resolution on the Secretary-General's report, ness of the need to create conditions in which a peaceful would have been to keep within the limits of its reso­ settlement: on a mutually acceptable basis could be lution of 4 April and not to create issues which might made. To achieve that end, Israel was prepared to influence the situation obtained by the re-establishment negotiate at the highest level of its responsibility with of the cease-fire. In the opinion of his delegation, the any or all of its neighbours on any or all outstanding United Kingdom draft resolution brought about such problems. new issues. Operative paragraph 4 referred to one of 184. The representative of Egypt said that his Gov­ a number of conclusions reached by the Secretary­ ernment, in accordance with its policy of co-operation General, and there was no reason to single it out for with efforts towards lessening and eliminating tension inclusion. Similarly, operative paragraph 7 lacked clarity. on the demarcation lines, within the framework of the In the opinion of the delegation of Jordan, it would I t Armistice Agreements, had given full assistance to the be better to request the Secretary-General to continue 1 Secretary-General in the task entrusted to him by the his efforts with the parties for the implementation of Council. It agreed with the functions of the observers the Council's resolution of 4 April 1956. As presently \ \ as defined by the Secretary-General. It had also agreed worded, paragraph 7 might be interpreted as an ap­ to the proposals of the Chief of Staff and of the Sec­ proach towards a new concept of a peaceful settlement between the parties. That same approach appeared ,,," retary-General and was even prepared to examine ( further any other proposals with a view to eliminating clearly in paragraph 6 of the preamble of the draft resolution. The new theory of bringing about a settle­ I tension along the demarcation lines and in the demil­ e ment on a mutually acceptable basis was very unreal­ itarized zones. In connexion with the cease-fire assur­ s istic. The only way to a real solution of the Palestine ance of his Government, the representative of Egypt p question would be to implement the United Nations pointed out that his Government considered that diver­ b sion of the Jordan River waters would dangerously resolutions. The delegation of Jordan requested deletion increase tensions and .mght have serious repercussions of that paragraph. on the situation in the Middle East. 189. The representative of Lebanon stated that it 0 185. As regards the United Kingdom draft reso­ was his Government's wish to help the Secretary­ t1 lution, the representative of Egypt said that his dele­ General consolidate his brilliant work and to assure a: gation, in order to avoid controversial issues, would him of continued co-operation in the implementation of A have preferred that it did not go beyond the Secretary­ other practical measures designed to eliminate tension re T1:~ General's report and the Council's resolution of 4 April along the demarcation lines. chief cause of tension U' 1956. For example, paragraph 6 of the preamble went along the demarcation lines continued to be Israel's al far beyond the report of the Secretary-General and intention of resuming the River Jordan diversion scheme tl could be interpreted in very different ways. The fact despite the Council's express prohibition. That cause p that the text of that paragraph was taken from the of tension and the most serious threat to the peace P Angle-Soviet declaration of 27 April 1956 was not had not been eliminated. The Secretary-General's rep­ tl enough justification for its inclusion in the draft resentations in that connexion had b-en without effect. n resolution. In those circumstances, the Arab States were left with u 186. The representative of Egypt then pointed out no alternative but to make reservations on that ques­ S that paragraph 7 of the operative part also required tion, while giving their assurances about the cease-fire. th clarification. In view of the explanation given by the The diversion of the waters of the River Jordan was th sponsor of the draft resolution, the representative of not just an economic scheme; its aim, in fact, was to be Egypt wondered why that paragraph could not be destroy the equilibrium of the opposing forces and to ab amended accordingly in order to limit the good offices secure for Israel a strategic and political advantage a of the Secretary-General to helping the parties progress prohibited by the General Armistice Agreement. Diver­ so towards full implementation of the Council's resolution sion of the waters would in fact be at the expense of ca of 4 April and full compliance with the Armistice the refugees. Israel was thus seeking a fait accompli-s­ ac Agreements. a situation which had always worked to its advantage. 187. The representative of Jordan stressed that his 190. Thus, continued the representative of Lebanon, Government, while giving its assurance regarding ob­ while the original mission of the Secretary-General was servance of the cease-fire, had made a strong reserva­ left uncompleted because one of the main causes of tion hy drawing the Secretary-General's attention to tension remained, the United Kingdom draft resolution the grave consequences that might ensue if the Jordan sought to extend his mission to new fields. The absence River diversion works were to be i esumed by Israel. of any indication of the purpose of the good offices After referring to the letter of his Prime Minister to referred to in operative paragraph 7 seemed to imply the Secretary-General, L1-::e representative of Jordan that the Secretary-General was required to deal with reiterated the position oi .ii , Government to the effect every problem calling for settlement, whether political, that any unilateral action by Israel in that respect would economic or legal. The risk that lay in extending the mean not only violation of the Council's resolution of Secretary-General's mission beyond the scope of the wo 27 October 1953 but also defiance of the principle Armistice Agreements had been recognized by the the indicated by the Secretary-General that the Council Council when it adopted its resolution of 4 April. not alone could interpret its resolution. Paragraph 6 of the preamble would also reopen prob- gat 27 - vitiated the vali lems for which the General :\ssembly had already corporate certain suggestions that had been made, and dew, paragraph provided solutions in certain resolutions. Moreover, he hoped that it would further take into account the as prejudicial to according to that paragraph, Israel and the Arab States expressed wish that the resolution should be so drafted could be modifi hy themselves were left free to decide jointly on ques­ as tn nu,ke it acceptable to the parties concerned and 197. The re tions which involved the rights of others, like the future capable of being unanimously approved. that the positio of the Palestine refugees, whose rights and legal status 193. At the 726th meeting (1 June 1956), the changed since . had alrcaclv been determined bv the Assernhlv's reso­ representative of the United Kingdom further clarified concern had ari E)·f~, " ) lution of 1i December al{cl the future of ] erusa­ the draft resolution submitted by his delegation. He conceution of t Iem, whose international status had alreaclv been estab­ assured members of the Council that there was no catch contaim'd in th lished by the Assembly's resolution of'9 December in operative paragraph 7 of the draft. By the use of felt sure that I 19-1-9. The retention of that paragraph in the draft the words "to continue his good offices with the draft resolution would, therefore, serve no useful purpose. Inasmuch as parties", his delegation had indicated that the Secretary­ with the Counci it would encourage Israel to continue to defy United General was being asked to continue the et-Torts he the view of the I Nations resolutions and to cling to the fait accompli, had begun in making progress towards full implemen­ it would constitute a threat to peace. I l)8. The di tation of the Council's resolution of -I- April and full tinned at the 191. The representative of the Union of Soviet compliance with the Armistice Agreements. As regards amcndment suln Socialist Republics said that it was a matter of im­ paragraph (l of the preamble, the representative of the supported by the portance that the Secretary-General had obtained from United Kingdom pointed out that it was only a pre­ Socialist Repul the parties agreement on the cease-fire, and that they ambular paragraph, the object of which was to point pointed out tha had given him assurances of their desire to comply out the fact that auv eventual settlement between the beyond the seep with the Armistice Agreements. It could be affirmed parties should be one arrivcd at through agrpcment that it would b with full confidence that there was every possibility of and should not be imposed. There was nothing in that a peaceful settI avoiding an armed conflict in the Middle East, if the paragraph which affected the nature of any future settle­ by means of a parties observed the undertaking they had assumed and ment. As regards operative paragraph 3, the United did not permit themselves to be provoked into involve­ acceptable. The Kingdom representative drew attention to the precision and the United ment in military operations. In the interests of strength­ of wording in the revised text and added that the graph 6 of the p ening international peace and security, it was neces­ words "in all areas" were not intended to extend the sary to continue the Council's efforts until a lasting 1)\' adopting it, \ scope of that paragraph beyond the areas defined in aild validity of peaceful settlement of the whole Palestine problem had the Armistice Agreements. been achieved. It was obvious that the success of the There was no di 19-1-. The representative of the united Kingdom Kingdom draft United Nations measures to lessen tension in the then said that while hi" delegation was not prepared of ~, April, Th Palestine area primarily depended upon the co-operation to amend or omit paragraph 6 of the preamble, it would, statement couta of the parties and it would, therefore, be proper for however, accept the suggestions made concerning the Council to call upon the parties to refrain from of the Council operative paragraphs 3 and 7 and would revise them other organ of any actions that would constitute violations of the as follows: Armistice Agreements and the relevant United Nations referred to the "3. Declares that full freedom of movement resolutions. The eff ectiveness of United Nations meas­ bv the appeal of th ures in the area would depend on the extent to which the United Nations observers must be respected graph ill questi all Members of the United Nations, and particularly along the Armistice Demarcation Lines, in the expediency. the members of the Security Council, did everything Demilitarized Zones and in the Defensive Areas as 199. The re] possible to assist the United Nations in achieving a defined in the Armistice Agreements, to enable them non and Syria to their functions;" peaceful settlement. For its part, the Government of fulfil the inclusion of the USSR was ready to give the United Nations the ''7. Requests the Secretary-General to continue draft resolution. necessary support in that direction, provided all meas­ his good offices with the parties with a view to full implementation of the Council's resolution of 4 April 200. At the ures were taken with due regard for the wishes of the representative 0 States of the Middle East and without interference in and full compliance with the Armistice Agreernents, and to report to the Security Council as appropriate." the interests of their domestic affairs. It was, therefore, unfortunate of the represent that, prior to the introduction of the draft resolution 195. The representative of Iran expressed his dele- amendment to before the Council, there had been no consultations gation's appreciation of the amendments which the preamble. He f about its contents with the parties concerned and with United Kingdom delegation had incorporated in its make a conscqt a number of members of the Council. Consequently, draft resolution. He added that his delegation had found preamble, which some provisions of the draft resolution required clarifi­ the apprehensions expressed by the representatives of clie~'i}lg cation and, secondly, as presently drafted, it was un­ the Arab States well founded, and the Council, while "n made in cons: acceptable to the parties concerned. taking a decision, must take their views into account. Secretary-Gen It should also refrain from including in its resolution 192. The draft resolution, continued the representa­ mentation by controversial ideas which, instead of helping the present tive of the USSR, contained a number of important ments." provisions with which his delegation was in agreement. favourable climate, might increase the tension. It was, There were, however, some provisions in the draft therefore, necessary that the present draft resolution 201. Prior t resolution which gave rise to doubt. The meaning of be so amended that it could be adopted by the members resolution, as re operative paragraph 7 had become clearer after the of the Council and accepted by the parties. For that of Iran, the Uni statement of the representative of the United Kingdom reason, the delegation of Iran would move the deletion Union of Sovie that the Secretary-General's terms of reference, in of paragraph 6 of the preamble, which exceeded the that they would rendering his "good offices", would not exceed those scope of the resolution which the Council ought to rcsentative of 11' conferred on him by the Council's resolution of 4 April. adopt and might compromise former United Nations of the United I If that was the case, the delegation of the USSR resolutions on Palestine. had shown in a wondered why it should not be specifically stated in 196. The representative of Peru noted with satis­ cerning paragraj the draft resolution itself. The USSR representative faction the desire expressed by all the parties concerned tive of the Unit noted with satisfaction that the United Kingdom dele­ fully to comply with the Armistice Agreements, and been necessary gation had already revised its draft resolution to in- observed that the reserves for self-defence in no way 28 • vitiated the validitv of the cease-lire assurances. In his and hoped that unanimous action in the Council would - dew, paragraph 6 ~f the preamble could not be regarded bring about further co-operative action in the area as prejudicial to the resolutions of the Assembly, which towards a peaceful solution of the Palestine problem. could be modified only by the Assembly itself, The representative of France regretted the deletion 197. The representative of the United States said of paragraph {I of the preamble, and emphasized that that the position of his delegation had remained un­ its suppression could not mean the rejection of a solu­ changed since .~ April 195(l. He regretted that some tion based on the principle it conveyed. The representa­ concern had arisen over what might have been a mis­ tive of Belgium stated that his delegation was quite . , conception of the purpose of some of the language certain that paragraph 6 of the preamble did not have contained in the United Kingdom draft resolution. He the scope attributed to it by those who opposed its felt sure that his delegation's view that the present retention. The representative of Cuba wanted it to draft resolution was fully in accord with and consistent be un record that his delegation would not have sup­ with the Council's resollttion of 4 April 1956, was also ported the Iranian amendment had it been put to the the view of the representative of the United Kingdom. vote. The representative of the Union of Soviet So­ cialist Republics welcomed the conciliatory step of 1()8, The discussion on the draft resolution con­ the United Kingdom delegation in accepting the Iranian tinned at the 727th meeting (1 June 1956). The amendment to delete paragraph 6 of the preamble. The amendment submitted by the representative of Iran was representative of Peru stated that, while his delegation supported by the representatives of the Union of Soviet had not at any time felt that paragraph 6 of the preamble Socialist Republics, China and Yugoslavia. They was likely to compromise the resolution approved by pointed out that paragraph 6 of the preamble went the Council and the Assembly, he welcomed the solution beyond the scope of the resolution of 4 April 1956 and by which the United Kingdom representative had agreed that it would be contradictory to attempt to promote to delete the paragraph in the interests of securing a a peaceful settlement on a mutually acceptable basis unanimous decision i- the Council. by means of a resolution which was not mutually acceptable. The representatives of Cuba, France, Peru Decision: At the 728th 1I1C'C'ting on 4 Iunc 1956, and the United States, however, maintained that para­ the United Kingdom draft resolution, as amended, 'leas graph 6 of the preamble did not mean that the Council, adopted unanimously. (S/3605) by adopting it, would be derogating from the authority 202. The representative of the United Kingdom and validity of resolutions of the General Assembly. said that, in the view of his Government, the omission There was no difference between the spirit of the United of paragraph 6 of the preamble could not in any way Kingdom draft resolution and the Council's resolution be taken to mean that the Council considered that the of + April. The representative of Peru added that a settlement should be on some other basis than a mu­ statement contained in the preamble to a resolution tually acceptable one. The Council's decision merely of the Council could not affect the resolutions of an­ meant that it was not taking any stand on that point. other organ of the United Nations. He, however, The paragraph concerned was 110t an essential part referred to the representative of the United Kingdom of the draft resolution; it was a desirable and apposite the appeal of the Iranian representative that the para­ addition to the preambular part of the text. The United graph in question might be deleted on grounds of Kingdom delegation had accepted the amendment be­ expediency. cause he felt that the object of the resolution being 199. The representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Leba­ to ask the Secretary-General, who represented the non and Syria reiterated strongly their objections to totality of the United Nations, to continue his labours the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the preamble of the on the Palestine question, dissent or lack of support draft resolution. from the members of the Council would have hampered him, a risk which the representative of the United 200. At the 128th meeting (-t July 1956), the Kingdom felt he should not take. He believed the representative of the United Kingdom stated that, in resolution as adopted was a further long step forward the interests of unanimity and in response to the plea toward the aim of the Council. of the representative of Iran, he accepted the Iranian 203. The representative of Israel regretted that amendment to delete the sixth paragraph of the paragraph 6 of the preamble had had to be deleted preamble. He further revised the draft resolution to from the draft resolution. The debate, which had make a consequential change in paragraph 7 of the taken place ill connexion with the draft resolution, preamble, which then read as follows: had led to a more disquieting estimate of the "Bclicuinq that further progress should now be situation in the l\Iiddle East than had been made in consolidating the gains resulting from the prevalent a week before. The people of Israel would Secretary-General's mission and towards full imple­ be wise to draw from the debate the conclusion mentation by the parties of the Armistice Agree­ that their national security was gravely threatened. ments." The Israel delegation bad, however, no doubt that, 201. Prior to the vote on the United Kingdom draft despite the speeches of the representatives of the Arab resolution, as revised and amended, the representatives States, world conscience did demand an agreed settle­ of Iran, the United States, France, Belgium, Cuba, the ment between Israel and its Arab neighbours in order Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Peru stated to liquidate the fears and sterile rancours which that they would vote in favour of the draft. The rep­ disfigured the Middle East. resentative of Iran paid a tribute to the representative 20+. The Government and people of Israel stood of the United Kingdom for the conciliatory spirit he for peace. Ruling out resort to force, any settlement had shown in accepting the Iranian amendment con­ must he based on the consent of the parties. and this cerning paragraph G of the preamble. The representa­ would conform with the jurisprudence of the General tive of the United States expressed regret that it had Assembly, of the Security Council and of the Armistice been necessary to delete paragraph 6 of the preamble, Agreements themselves. 29 ., - 205. In the opinion of his Government, added the ance that it would respect the Council's decision pro­ • representative of ! srael, the acceptance of the Iranian hibiting the resumption of work on the River Jordan amendment had reduced the prospects of success by diversion scheme, and that was the essential element the Secretary-General in the continuation of his mission. in his peace mission. The representative of Lebanon The more the Council was restricted to the static con­ further stated that Israel had repudiated the Protocol cept of remaining fixed within the armistice framework of Lausanne, which was signed by Israel and the Arab without progress towards a more durable settlement, countries and which provided for the implementation the harder it was for good offices and conciliation to of the United Nations resolutions designed to solve take the position in the Middle East beyond its present the Palestine problem. Agreement on a mutually context of danger and tension. acceptable basis with such a party was difficult to reach. 206. The Government of Israel did. not see any 20l). The representative of Jordan said that his fault in the resolution in respect of what it contained. Government would continue to facilitate the mission It did, however, regret that which it omitted. of the Sccrctarv-Geucral as stated in the Council's 207. The representatives of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan resolution of ..J. ;\pril, and stated that the peace which and Egypt rejected the charge of the Israel representa­ the ..vrnb States sought was one based on justice and ti ve that the Arab States were not interested in a on recognition of the legitimate rights of the original inhabitants of Palestine. A. Conside peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. The rep­ tions 3 resentative of Syria pointed out that it was Israel that 210. The representative of Egypt, after pointing cation ( had been condemned hv the Council four times in three out that Israel hall g'll11e hack on the Lausanne Protocol, sixteen years for violation of'Armistice Agreements. He said stressed that Arab States stood for peace. that Israel had. already taken very definite positions on 211. The Sccrctarv-Gencral said that the Council's 213. At i the three fundamental issues of the Palestine question: decision had given him the privilege to continue his the Security (I) the question of the refugees; (2) the question of work in the spirit in which it had been begun. The letters from Jerusalem; and (3) the territorial question. On all Council's debate had highlighted the points on which texts of Gcn those questions Israel had defied. the injunctions of differences of view existed. He hoped that those differ­ 23 1\O\'e111be U nited Nations organs and declared that there would ences would not harm the efforts on which the United December 19. be no repatriation of refugees, no implementation of Nations, in co-operation with the parties, had embarked. for admission the General Assembly resolution on internationalization 212. The President said that the resolution adopted (Sj3..J...J.ljRev of Terusalem and no recession from the territorial by the Council was limited in its objectives. Its primary before it thir demarcation lines. These did not represent a policy concern was to secure the full performance by the submitted bv of peace. parties of the undertakings already given by them when Council, ha~i 208. The representative of Lebanon stated (hat they had accepted the Armistice Agreements. The tions of each whereas Arab Governments had given the Secretary­ Council would look to all the parties to give their full the admission General every assistance in his mission, the Secretary­ support to the Council, to the Secretary-General and , the .F General had been unable to obtain from Israel an assur- to the Chief of Staff in the execution of that resolution. Portugal, Cey All those dra of the State, concerning th "The Se "Having of Italy, "RCC01ll11 be adrnitte 214. The Council had formally expl to consider, ir of the widest I the pending , eighteen coun tion arose. ognize that tl General Asse (X) had beet ceclented opp ing and of i was no need resting on ea 215. The vital to the and the Sec harmony. Th many years' promise with that resolutior came as close ment of camp 30 • -~_.- . ----I.. I·. -

.n PART 11 -e y Other matters considered by the Council 1. IS n Chapter 2 's h d ADMISSION OF NEW l\IEl\'IBERS 11 A. Conslderntton of G..-neral Assembly resolu­ vote for the admission of Yiet- ~ am and Korea and tions 817 (IX) and 918 (X) and of the appli­ g any other country which might achieve unification and 1, cation of Spain, and the recommendation of apply for membership in the United Nations, Xloreover, sixteen applicant States to membership the l;encral Assembly resolution was strictly consistent with the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter. The 's 213. At its 70bt meeting (10 December 1955), judgement called for by that Article must be objective .s the Security Council adopted an agenda consisting of and based on high moral principles rather than on e letters f1"0m the Secretary-General transmitting the particular interests. That was the real significance of h texts of General Assembly resolutions 817 (IX) of the advisory opinion of the International Court of '- 23 November 1954 (S/332+) and 918 (X) of 8 Justice of 28 l\Iay 194~.:! Such an interpretation he cl December 1955 (S/3+67), and the application of Spain pointed out, was fully consistent with universality. The l. for admission to membership in the United Nations purpose of the United Nations was universality, and cl (SI3-++ 1IRev.l ). At that meeting, the Council had Article 4 must be interpreted in that sense. In the y before it thirteen draft resolutions (S/3468-S/3480) atomic age, it could not be assumed that any peoples e submitted by China, providing respectively that the in the world were not peace-loving, especially the n Council, having received and considered the applica­ peoples of small countries. e tions of each of the following States, should recommend 216. A favourable vote coinciding with that of the 11 the admission of Italy, Japan, Spain, the Republic of General Assembly would be a move towards com­ d Korea, the Republic of Viet-Nam, Cambodia, Laos, pleting the Organization and lessening international Portugal, Ceylon, Jordan, Libya, Austria and Ireland. tension. On the other hand, failure would mean a All those draft resolutions were, except for the name profound crisis in the Organization and a loss of its of the State, identical with the following resolution prestige. concerning the application of Italy (S/34D8): 217. The representative of the United Kingdom of "The Security Council, Great Britain and Northern Ireland said that the "Having received and considered the application Security Council was bound to pay the most serious of Italy, attention to so strong an expression of General "Recommends to the General Assembly that Italy Assembly's views as that contained in resolution 918 be admitted to membership in the United Nations." (X). The Council, which under the Charter must deal 214. The President (New Zealand) noted that the with applications first and make recommendations on Council had been summoned in accordance with the them to the Assembly, bore a heavy responsibility. formally express.ed desire of the General Assembly Their first duty, as he saw it, was to find a procedure, to consider.. in the light of the general opinion in favour soundly based in law, by which the Council could con­ of the widest possible membership of the United Nations, sider the applications of the eighteen countries referred the pending applications for membership of all those to in the Assembly resolution. In addition, each delega­ eighteen countries about which no problem of unifica­ tion must take into account the sentiment of the great tion arose. He stressed that the Council should rec­ majority of other Members in favour of the widest ognize that the measure of agreement reached in the possible membership of the United Nations. General Assembly in the adoption of resolution 918 218. His Government had never thought of the (X) had been so broadly based as to offer an unpre­ United Nations as an association of like-minded States cedented opportunity to break a deadlock of long stand­ from which should be excluded countries of whose ing and of increasingly serious consequences. There political and social systems it might not approve. There was no need to emphasize the heavy responsibility was nothing in Article 4 to prevent each Member resting on each member of the Council. from assaying the qualifications of a candidate with 215. The representative of Peru said that it was benevolence, and his delegation's attitude would be one vital to the Organization that the General Assembly of the utmost limit of benevolence. Members of the and the Security Council should act in complete Council should furthe h'~ar in mind the opinion of harmony. The Assembly resolution was the result of the International Cou. of Justice that a Member of many years' work and represented a policy of com­ the United Nations was not entitled to make its consent promise with no sacrifice of principle entailed. Indeed, to the admission of one State dependent on that of that resolution was based on a political formula which another. At the same time, the objective was to break came as close as it was possible to come to the attain­ 2 Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, ment of complete universality. The formula implied a Article .f.). Ad'i'isor}' Opinion: f.C.!. Reports. 19-18, p. Si. 31 - the membership deadlock, and it was clearly incumbent admission of Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, • upon the members of the Council to find a way tc allow Jordan, Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, Italy, Austria, 228. Th the admission of all eighteen countries. He was author­ Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Ceylon, Nepal, Libya, of New Zer ized to vote in favour of all the eighteen. Cambodia, Japan, Laos and Spain. Each of these draft immediate to in the G 219. While he had no specific procedure to suggest, resolutions was similar in wording to the following draft resolution concerning Albania (S/3484): 1955. It die he felt that it would be quite wfong, when the Council that resolut reached the voting stage, to begin by voting on the "The Security Council, criteria set Chinese draft resolutions, since they recommended the "Harinq examined the application of Albania for objective d admission of only eleven of the eighteen States and admission to memhership in the United Nations: ior subjecti proposed an arbitrary order of voting on them. "Rcronnncnds to the General Assembly to admit ized by the 220. The representative of the Union of Soviet Albania to membership in the United Nations." its consider Socialist Republics said that there was now real hope, 224. The representative of China emphasized that of certain in contrast to earlier years, that the deadlock on the the Security Council was one of the principal and clecidecl to admission of new Members could at last be broken. autonomous organs of the United Nations, with its 229. Th That situation was directlv connected with the recent own functions and rights and its own rules of pro­ .\ssemblye rela.....cation of international tension and the general cedure. \Vhile he agreed that the members of the an underst improvement in international relations. The proceed­ Council should pay clue consideration to the sentiments of all eight ~he ings in the .i« Hoc Political Committee and in of the General Assembly, the Council should function in such unde General Assembly had shown that an overwhelming strict accordance with the provisions and principles of clear~y admitted. majority of the Members of the United Nations the Charter. Although his delegation had not voted for must be a s admis~ion State~, supported the of eighteen and the!r the Assembly resolution, he would do his utmost for its also have t views could not be Ignored by the Security Council, implementation, within the terms of Article 4 of the should achi The Soviet Union, which had unreservedly supported Charter. proposal, ai adoption of the membership resolution in the Assembly, 225. Turning to the thirteen draft resolutions sub­ asain took a firm stand in favour of admission of all mitted by his delegation. he explained that there was 230. Ac eighteen States, without any exception. It was the duty no intention that the Council should limit itself to with the d of the Council and its members to respond to the them and that no particular meaning was attached to resolution Assembly's appeal by taking a positive decision on the order in which they had been submitted. The "The the admission of the eighteen States. Council's practice was to vote on draft resolutions, and "Notin 221. It was essential to reach agreement on a not on applications as such. The relevant rule as far General procedure and order of voting which would gt'ran~ee as order of voting was concerned was rule 32, according the Seen the admission of all the eighteen States an _ which to which proposals should be voted on in the order of the light would exclude the possibility of any accidents or sur­ their submission. widest pe prises, either in the voting in the Council or in the 226. The representative of the United States of the pendi subsequent vote .in the Assembly. The. need .for s~ch America said that his delegation would continue to eighteen zuarantees was Imposed by past experience, m which be guided by three basic principles on the question of cation at.. ~o-called abstentions had rendered it impossible to admission. They were : (1) to bring into membership "HaL.·il1 solve the problem as a whole, and by the position all qualified States which applied; (2) to follow the membersl adopted by certain members of the Council in th.e provisions of the Charter in judging the qualifications debates on the ouestion in the Assembly. The Council Republic, of applicants; and (3) to avoid thwarting the will of Austria, and the Assembly should take agreed action on the a qualified majority by use of the veto in the Security matter, in accordance with a pre-determined plan. Libya, Cc Council. "Recm. 222. He accordingly submitted the following draft 227. Clearly qualified and supported by the United mISSIOn resolution (S/3482): States were six European applicants-Austria, Finland, "The Security Council, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain-and seven Asian­ 231. In States, the "Bearing in mind General Assembly resolution African applicants whose membership had been recom­ of New Z 918 (X) of 8 December 1955 on the admission of mended by the Bandung Conference for present ad­ would be v new Members to the United Nations, mission, namely, Cambodia, Ceylon, Japan, Jordan, separate vo "1. Resolves to examine the applications for ad­ Laos, Libya and Nepal. They would already be Mem­ bers had not the USSR veto, or threat of veto, barred listed, prio mission to the United Nations of the eighteen States a whole an referred to in the said General Assembly resolution them. There were other qualified applicants. The United in the chronological order in which these applications States did not believe that the Republic of Korea 232. Th had been received, bearing in mind that the Council should be barred from membership merely because part clelegation's will take a separate decision on each application and of its territory was wrongfully and forcibly detached and for the will begin to consider each application after the from the authority of what the General Assembly had said that it General Assembly has completed its consideration held to be the only lawfully elected Government in should be s of the Security Council's recommendation on the Korea. The Republic of Viet-Nam was another quali­ joint draft preceding application; fied applicant barred only by the Soviet veto. The fundamenta Unitecl States would not support the applications made various app "2. Authoriccs the President of the Security for Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Council to reach agreement with the President of of Italy, Ir Romania, since it regarded the Governments of those Laos, Finla the General Assernblv on the above-mentioned pro­ States as not now independent, and since the subject cedure for the eXaJY;inatio~l of applications." and hoped t status of those Governments constituted or derived also permit 223. The USSR representative then submitted from the violation of treaties and other international eizhteen draft resolutions (S/3484-S/ 3501) providing engagements. However, it recognized that the issues 233. At re~pectively that the Council, h~ving examined the could be the subject of an honest difference of opinion President, i applications of each of the following States for mem­ and would not use the veto in the Council to thwart of the US bership in the United Nations, should recommend the the will of a qualified majority. the admissi ceive that t 32 lie, • overWhe:ng~'l' endorse that recommendation by an 'ia, 228. The President, speaking as the representative ya, of New Zealand, said that his delegation favoured the majority. aft immediate admission of the eighteen States referred 234. The representative of Brazil stressed the ' I I11g to in the General Assembly's resolution of 8 December gravity of the decision to be taken by the Council. The f 1955. It did not believe that the solution suggested in procedure contemplated in connexion with the draft ~,;' that resolution violated Article 4 of the Charter. The resolution (S/3502) jointly submitted by Brazil and I) criteria set out in that Article were not capable of New Zealand would enable the Council to respect the ~ for objective demonstration and must therefore be a matter provisions of the Charter and the advisory opinion of 1\ " ior subjective judgement, which should be character­ the International Court of Justice. The resolution !. nit ized by the tolerance enjoined by the Charter. Despite adopted by the General Assembly did not constitute a I~ its considerable reservations about the qualifications violation of the Charter, and the Council was not p hat of certain applicants, therefore, his Government had required to go beyond Article 4 in examining one by i; .nd decided to vote in favour of all eighteen. one the applications before it. :) \~ its 229. The Council must face the fact that the 235. The representative of Iran considered that the I, ro­ Assembly expected the members of the Council to reach best procedure would be to vote separately on the it the an understanding permitting the immediate admission admission of each of the eighteen applicants and then f, nts of all eighteen applicants and that, in the absence of vote on the whole of a draft resolution recommending III such understanding, no candidate was likely to be the admission of all those States. He supported the of admitted. He consequently believed that, while there joint draft resolution and requested that it should be for must be a separate vote on each applicant, there would given priority. His delegation would vote separately in ,., its also have to be a vote on the group. That procedure favour of the admission of each of the eighteen States the should achieve everything sought by the USSR in its listed in that proposal. proposal, and would be more generally acceptable. 236. The representative of Peru also supported the .lb­ 230. Accordingly, New Zealand had eo-sponsored joint draft resolution and would vote in favour of vas with the delegation of Brazil the following joint draft giving it priority. to resolution (S/3502): 237. The representative of Belgium said that his to "The Security Council, delegation continued to maintain the view, upheld by 'he the 1948 advisory opinion of the International Court I11d "Noting resolution 918 (X) adopted by the of Justice, that each application should be considered far General Assemblv on 8 December 1955, in which and voted upon separately. Since the procedures sug­ ing the Security Council was requested 'to consider, in gested in the various proposals. before the Council in­ of the light of the general opinion in favour of the volved such a separate vote, he would support the widest possible membership of the United Nations, proposal which was given priority by the Council. of the pending applications for membership of all those 238. After further discussion of the question of to eighteen countries about which no problem of unfi­ priority, the representative of the Union of Soviet So­ of cation arises', cialist Republics, at the 703rd meeting (13 December), hip "RQ7.·ing considered separately the applications for stated his understanding that the joint draft resolution the membership of Albania, the Mongolian People's of Brazil and New Zealand constituted a single entity, ms Republic, Jordan, Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, Italy, a single recommendation, which was to be considered of Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Ceylon, Nepal, by the General Assembly in that sense. If the Assembly 'ity Libya, Cambodia, Japan, Laos and Spain, amended the recommendation in any way, it would lose "Recommends to the General Assembly the ad­ its meaning as an entity and would have to be referred led mission of the above-named countries." back to the Council. He would consequently not insist nd, that priority should be given to the procedure proposed 231. In reply to the representative of the United m­ by the USSR. m­ States, the President, speaking as the representative of New Zealand, confirmed that the draft resolution 239. The representative of the United Kingdom ld- said that his Government's attitude had been influenced • an, would be voted 011 paragraph by paragraph and that separate votes would be taken on each of the countries by the great weight of opinion in favour of breaking m­ the deadlock. It had long supported twelve of the :ed listed, prior to the vote on the relevant paragraph as a whole and on the draft resolution as a whole. applicants. Six of those countries were in , which led did not have its full representation in the Organization, rea 232. The representative of France, recalling his and among them was Ceylon, a fellow member of the art clelegation's support for the principle of universality Commonwealth. There were six old applications and led and for the admission of most of the applicant States, one new one from European countries. The United lad said that it did not consider that the rules of the Charter Kingdom supported all those candidates. in should be sacrificed. His delegatiori would support the 240. The fact that the United Kingdom was now lli­ joint draft resolution inasmuch as it respected those 'he prepared to vote in favour of each of the five Soviet fundamental rules. Reviewing the qualifications of candidates must not be taken as in any way implying ide various applicants, he expressed support for admission .nd approval of their past actions and attitudes. Its readi­ of Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Austria, Spain, Cambodia, ness to support them was in some sense an act of faith rse Laos, Finland, Japan, Ceylon, Nepal, Jordan and Libya, ect in their disposition to comply in the future with the and hoped that, in the near future, circumstances would obligations which they would be assuming under the red also permit the admission of Viet-Nam. nal Charter when they were admitted to the United Nations. .les 233. At the 702nd meeting (10 December), the His Government had particular reservations concerning ion President, in reply to a question by the representative the sovereignty of Outer Mongolia and the peace-loving art of the USSR, said that if the Council recommended character of Albania. The United Kingdom would, the admission of the eighteen States, he could not con­ nevertheless, as an act of faith, vote in favour of the ceive that the Assembly would do other than promptly admission of those two States. 33 I ~ --._------• 241. The representative of China welcomed the fact with 2 abstentions (Beiqium, the United States of 254. that a separate vote on each of the eighteen applicants Aniericay . Socialist I listed in the second paragraph of the joint draft reso­ 247. At the 704th meeting (13 December), the by the .PI lution would keep that part of the proposal within the President, speaking as the representative of New cants listc letter of the Charter. However, the list did not include Zealand, said that if the Council accepted the Chinese the posrti the applications of Korea and Viet-Nam and the order amendment it would be doing- something different from of receipt of voting implicit in the listing in order of application what the General Assembly had asked, and its chances Council \ amounted to surrender to the point of view of the of success would be diminished. Therefore, although that orde USSR. The USSR position was one of admitting his delegation favoured the applications of the Republics Dccish eighteen applicants or none, and that was also the of Korea and of Viet-Nam, he would abstain on the position adopted in the joint draft resolution. The last Chinese amendment instead of voting for it. 'i'otes to 1 paragraph appeared to be a legaliza~ion of the "package The Co 248. The representative of the United States, after deal", which W:lS recognized as being contrary to the resolution Charter and to the advisory opinion of the International stating that there was no definite obligation on the the Chin Court of Justice. That would be so especially if the part of the Council to give effect to whatever the follo'il.'ing Council should accept the interpretation placed on that General Assembly might have voted, said that his understanding of the primary purpose of the joint draft The fir paragraph by the USSR representative. The proposal 8 cotes hi would be much improved if the paragraph were deleted. resolution was that it provided an orderly method of voting and an orderly procedure. In view of the United S For those reasons he could not support priority for the The o] joint draft resolution. Council's past support of the applications of the Re­ publics of Korea and Viet-Nam, the representative of preamble 242. Turning to the general issues, the representa­ China was well within his rights in moving the amend­ abstention tive of China stated that, while the United Nations must ment. The United States continued to feel that coun­ The in tolerate a variety of systems and policies among its tries divided only because of the aggressive action of Chinese Members, it must also have a minimum of like­ others should not be barred from membership by virtue Republic mindedness in certain basic aspects if it was to survive. of that illegal division. The Republic of Korea must identical The Charter required all Members to be peace-loving. always have a special place in the United Nations as 1 abstcnti It also provided for the sovereign equality of nati<:>lls, a symbol of the first case in human history when aggres­ not inclu a phrase meaning that there must not be any domina­ sion had been repelled by collective military action pcrnianen tion of one country over another. A third element of under the auspices of an international organization. Albani like-mindedness laid down by the Charter was that abstcntioi of observance of, and respect for, human rights and fun­ 249. The representative of the United Kingdom damental freedoms, Without those minimum elements pointed out that there was still before the Council A mcrica) of like-mindedness, the Organization would perish. General Assembly resolution 817 (IX) or 23 November The in 1954 requesting further consideration of the pending received ( 243. Unfortunately, since 1945, the one-world con­ applications for membership, among which were those abstention cept on which the Charter was based had lost ground. of the Republics of Korea and Viet-Nam. His Govern­ Mongolia' On the one hand, there had been a line of development ment had not taken the initiative in trying to secure negative ill the direction of the Charter, with new nations be­ the admission of those countries, because it had judged the COt/H, coming independent, while on the other hand there had such a course not to be practical politics. He would The in, been a line of development running counter to the vote in favour of both. In voting for the Republic of ceiued, i1 Charter, with nations such as Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Viet-Nam, he considered that he would in no way be Poland Czechoslovakia, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, (USSR). prejudicing the successful outcome of the arrangements ,. eluded, tl Romania and Mongolia losing whatever sovereign in­ agreed upon at Geneva in 1954. member 0 dependence they had had. The conflict between those 250. The representative of France agreed that the two tendencies was the central issue before the world Hunqai Council was entitled to vote on the Chinese amendment abstentior and, in comparison, all other questions became insig­ and said that he would vote in favour of both the nificant. Republics of Viet-Nam and of Korea. The in. 244. The eighteen States proposed for admission case, 10 ~ included four European satellite States that had r~­ 251. The representative of the Union of Soviet and Aust cently been condemned by the United Nations for th~Ir Socialist Republics said that the amendment to add those of azeression against Greece. As for Outer Mongolia, two applicants to the list of eighteen was not an amend­ h~brecalled hadinvad~d ment in the ordinary sense, but a completely new pro­ Roman that, in 1947, Mongolian troops in favoul China to a depth of 100 kilometres. Outer Mongolia posal which was obviously intended to obstruct a de­ cision by the Security Council. He saw no need to of Ameri had participated with }he Chir1.ese and K.orean <:;om­ The .i/ munists in the war in Korea against the United Nations. reply to the slanderous fabrications regarding the Mon­ golian People's Republic by the person illegally occupy­ Cambodic 245. Although there had indeed been overwhelming ing China's place at the Council table. uotcs in f delegation support in the Assembly for the "package Nepal, I deal", he questioned whether the 'peoples of .the world 252. The representative of Turkey said that he would vote for the admission of the Republics of Korea included, likewise supported such a bargain. He believed that member they expected the UI:ite~ Nation.s to st.and hy i~s pri!:­ and Viet-Nam as well as for the joint draft resolution ciples. If the Organization sacrificed Its principles, It in its entirety. The in and 1 ag would be committing moral suicide. 253. The President staed his intention, under rule 30 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, of Sj'ain 'iC' 246. He submitted an amendment (S/3506) to add of a pen ~ putting the Chinese amendment to the vote after the tl: names of the Republics of Korea and Viet-Nam applic:ation~ to the joint draft resolution. words "Having considered -paratcly the The s for membership of", with a .s.parute vote on each ot as atncn Decision: The Iranian proposal to give priority in the two countries mentioned in the amendment, followed fa~lour ( /he 7ioting to the joint draft resolution of Brazil and by a separate vote on the eighteen countries listed in ke}) wit ;Yew Zealand 7.C'aS adopted by 8 votes to 1 (China), the draft resolution. Zealand, I 34 ~ • ies Dj 254. The representative of the Union of Soviet 255. The President stated that he would not put Socialist Republics regarded the procedure contemplated the last paragraph to the vote since there was nothing ), the by the President as incorrect, holding that the appli­ to recommend to the General Assembly. New cants listed in the amendment should be voted on in 256. At the 705th meeting (14 December), con­ 'hinese the position they occupied in the chronological order vened at his request, the representative of the Union t from of receipt of all the applications. He proposed that the of Soviet Socialist Republics said that a new approach hances Council vote on the amendment in accordance with must be sought to the question of admission of new :hough that order. Members. The USSR therefore wished to withdraw mblics Decisions: The U S,I.,'R proposal '

Chapter 3

PHOPOSAL TO CALL A GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING THE CHARTER

320. The General Assemblv, on 21 November 1955, eral ..Assembly had set up a Committee which would adopted resolution 992 (X) "by which, among other consider the question of fixing a time and a place for things, the Assembly, mindful of the provisions of para­ the conference. That Committee would be free to report graph 3 of Article 109 of the Charter, believing in the in 1957 whatever it deemed desirable. There was 110 desirability of reviewing the Charter in the light of ex­ danger of the United Nations being rushed into holding perience gained in its operation, and recognizing that a conference before it would be wise to hold one. such a review should be conducted under auspicious 324. The representative of the Union of Soviet international circumstances, (1) decided that a General Socialist Republics stated that his delegation was op­ Conference to review the Charter should be held at an posed to the holding of a review conference and that appropriate time; (2) further decided that a Committee he would therefore vote against the joint draft reso­ consisting of all the Members of the United Nations lution. In his view, the Charter was an entirely satis­ should consider, in consultation with the Secretary­ factory document which met the demands made on it General, the question of fixing a time and a place for and needed no alteration of any kind. He held that the the Conference, its organization and procedure; (3) main purposes and fundamental principles of the United requested the Committee to report with its recommen­ Nations, the main obligations assumed by the Member dations to the General Assembly at its twelfth session; States and the principle of unanimity of the five per­ and (4) decided that the resolution should be trans­ manent members of the Security Council formed a mitted to the Security Council. sound foundation for fruitful international co-operation. 321. The Secretary-General duly transmitted to the If the joint draft resolution was adopted, he added, his Security Council the text of the resolution (S/3503). country would not take part in the work of the Com­ At its 707th meeting (16 December 1955), the Council mittee. discussed the matter. 325. The representative of the United States pointed 322. The representatives of Brazil, Iran, the United out that the General Assembly, by a very substantial Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and majority, had decided that a conference to review the the United States of America submitted the following Charter should be held at an appropriate time. He re­ joint draft resolution (S/3504) : gretted the position taken by the representative of the USSR. He pointed out that the decision adopted by "The Security Council, the Assembly and the draft: esolution proposed to the "Mindful that Article 109, paragraph 3, of the Security Council did not constitute a decision to revise Charter of the United Nations provides that if a the Charter in any respect. Nor was it a decision that General Conference of the Members of the United the Charter needed revision, either generally or spe­ Nations for the purpose of reviewing the Charter has cifically. All that the draft resolution proposed was that not been held before the tenth annual session of the all Member States, including the new Members, should General Assembly, such a conference shall be held consider all the aspects of the matter and then make if so decided by a majority vote of the Members of recommendations to the twelfth session of the Assembly the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven as to the time and place at which such a review con­ members of the Security Council, ference might fruitfully be held. "Having considered resolution 992 (X) adopted 326. The representative of Belgium stated that his by the General Assembly on 21 November 1955 in delegation would vote for the draft resolution without which the Assembly decided that a conference to re­ prejudice to Article 109 of the Charter, according to view the Charter of the United Nations shall be held which a further decision of the Council might very well at an appropriate time, be needed when the question arose of actually convening "Expresses its concurrence in the Assembly's deci­ the conference following recommendations to be made sion, as set forth in resolution 992 (X) of the General by the Committee appointed by the Assembly. .Assembly." Decision: The [our-Pourer joint draft resolution was . 323. .The representative of the United Kingdom, in adopted by 9 uotcs to 1 (USSR), soitli 1 abstention introducing the draft resolution, stated that the Gen- (Prance), .

41 - ..

PART ill ~Iatte The Military Staff Committee

Chapter 4 LETTER DAT WORK OF THE MILITARY STAFF COMMITTEE INDONESIA, THAILAND A. Status of the Commhtee's work CERNING 327. The Military Staff Committee has been functioning continuously under 1. COMMUNICA1 the draft rules of procedure during the period under review and has held a total of twenty-six meetings without making further progress on matters of substance. 328. In a let representatives 0 Iraq, Jordan, Le Syria, Thailand < of the Security in Algeria under Nations Charter Algeria had air the Council in randum submitt of seventeen Me had been stated such an extent t main indifferent the infringement and to the flagra man rights. The ber States adde memorandum, tl worsened due to military actions, life.

2. POINT OF OR UNION OF 329. The let concerning Alge agenda of the 7 1956). 330. At tl e tive of the Unio to the considerat mitted a formal sional rules of p question indefini which had been portant one and to discuss the s formation. 331. The re USSR proposal Member States, quested consider' delay. Therefore, upon its agenda should be withd drawal had beet question of adjot had not even be 332. The rep his delegation w 42 -

PART IV l\'Iatter submitted to the Security Council which was not admitted to its agenda

Chapter 5 LETTER DATED 13 JUNE 1956 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF AFGHANISTAN, EGYPT, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JORDAN, LEBANON, UBYA, PAKISTAN, , SYRIA, THAILAND AND YEMEN ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL CON· CERNING ALGERIA 1. COMMUNICATION FROM THIRTEEN MEMBER STATES Algerian question as a matter of urgency, it would, in 328. In a letter dated 13 June 1956 (S/3609), the a spirit of co-operation, be prepared to accept the USSR representatives of Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, proposal for the adjournment of the item. He added that Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the thirteen Member States had no intention of with­ Syria, Thailand and Yemen requested an early meeting drawing their request to the Council. of the Security Council to consider the grave situation 333. The representative of Beigium maintained that in Algeria under Article 35, paragraph 1, of the United what was at issue at the moment was not the considera­ Nations Charter. They recalled that the situation in tion of the Algerian question, but its inclusion in the Algeria had already been brought to the attention of Council's agenda. Adjournment could not properly be the Council in April 1956. In the explanatory memo­ contemplated until the question had been placed on the randum submitted at that time by the representatives agenda. of seventeen Member States (S /3589 and Add.l), it 334. The representative of the Union of Soviet So­ had been stated that the situation had deteriorated to cialist Republics said that objections of a procedural such an extent that the United Nations could not re­ nature had been made to his delegation's proposal. He main indifferent to the threat to peace and security and would, however, point out that, in full conformity with the infringement of the basic right of self-determination, rule 33, he was asking the Council to adjourn the and to the flagrant violation of other fundamental hu­ meeting which had a provisional agenda of two items man rights. The representatives of the thirteen Mem­ even before the Council came to considering the first ber States added that since the submission of that item, which was the adoption of the agenda. memorandum, the situation in Algeria had further worsened due to the nature and scope of recent French 335. The representative of the United Kingdom of military actions, which had resulted in grievous loss of Great Britain and Northern Ireland stated that the life. first question before the Council was the adoption of the proposed agenda. The Council could not possibly 2. POINT OF ORDER BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE postpone discussion of something before it had decided UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS to discuss it. 329. The letter from the thirteen Member States Decision: The USSR proposal 'was rejected by 7 concerning Algeria was included in the provisional votes to 1 (USSR), with 3 abstentions (China, Iran agenda of the 729th meeting of the Council (26 June and Yugoslavia). 1956). 330. At tt e outset of that meeting, the representa­ 3. QUESTION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA tive of the union of Soviet Socialist Republics, prior to the consideration of the adoption of the agenda, sub­ 336. The representative of France stated that his mitted a formal proposal, under rule 33 of the provi­ delegation would ask the Security Council not to in­ sional rules of procedure, to postpone discussion of the clude in its agenda the complaint submitted by thirteen question indefinitely. He considered that the question Member States in their letter of 13 June. The French which had been placed before the Council was an im­ Government considered Algerian affairs to be essen­ portant one and that the Council required more time tially within the domestic jurisdiction of France. to discuss the situation and collect the necessary in­ 337. The representative of Iran said that after care­ formation. ful consideration his delegation, together with twelve 331. The representative of France, opposing the other Asian and African Member States, had asked the USSR proposal for adjournment, said that the thirteen Council to examine urgently the grave situation in Al­ Member States, in their letter dated 13 June, had re­ geria because they felt that it was of a nature to give quested consideration of the Algerian question without rise to a dispute between nations and that its continu­ delay. Therefore, the Council must decide without delay ance was likely to endanger the maintenance of inter­ upon its agenda or the request by the thirteen States national peace and security. They also believed that a should be withdrawn. So far no request for its with­ Council debate on the Algerian question would help the drawal had been made. Moreover, there could be no French Government as well as the Algerian people to question of adjourning a meeting for which the agenda find a just and equitable solution. had not even been adopted. 338. The representative of Iran expressed his Gov­ . 332. The representative of Iran said that although ernment's satisfaction at France's liberal attitude hIS delegation would like the Council to discuss the towards Morocco and and added that, in the 43 .. • had followed same spmt, France could not indefinitely remain un­ on violations of human rights and of a nature that af­ clusion of itei moved by the struggle of the Algerian people for the fected relations between Member States was not es­ supported in richt of self-determination. Pointing out that the sentiallv within that domestic jurisdiction. Further­ to the inclusio H~nclun(T Conference had supported 'the right of the more, the inclusion of the Algerian question on the b • I cil's agenda. Algerian people to self-dctermi.natlOn•. t le r,epresenta- agenda of the Council would not by any means consti­ the Chilean le tive of Iran said that the Asian-African States had tute "intervention" in the affairs of France within the in 19~8, the tl agreed to a postponement of the. discussion ~of the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 7. It would also not G.ener~1 cOl1ll~ctence ~oul~ States and Be Algerian question at the last session of the prejudge the question of which be to be includec discussed later, once the question had been inscribed Assembly, and again had not asked for a meeting m whether it can April 19"56 when they had drawn the attention of the on the agenda of the Council. graph 7. Thel: Securitv Council to that question, in the hope that 342. The representative of France stated that there Council had I France"would ultimatelv realize the gravity of the situa­ had been no change in the position of his Government stressing the tion and would bring itself to settle the question with regarding the competence of the United Nations to prejudging it. the Algerian people. Unfortunately, the policy followed discuss matters falling within the domestic jurisdiction question. hy France in Algeria had belied those hopes and had of Member States. created bitterness ami apprehension. 348. The r 343. There could be 1',1 doubt that Algerian affairs gation viewed 339. The refusal of the French Government to pay were a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdic­ in the agend anv attention to the apprehensions of the Asian-African tion of France. French sovereignty in Algeria had been would help in t States, the intense character of the military operations exercised for over 120 veal'S and that fact had been in Algeria. An and the increasingly repressive measures being carried implicitly or explicitly recognized by the international and 35. in th (Jut in Alseria had finally compelled the thirteen Mern­ community. France alone legally exercised sovereignty State~ have the co-o her to submit the question to the Council. Be­ in Algeria and the exercise of that sovereignty was es­ clear that Fr cause of the number and importance of the countries sentially a matter of French domestic jurisdiction. measure of eo which had submitted the Algerian question, and because 344. France was doing no more in Algeria than hand, France of the cultural and religious ties which united them exercising one of the most normal attributes of domestic reforms in AI with the Algerian people, it was essential that the sovereignty, namely, to maintain public order which possible. Thus Council should give them an opportunity to express had been disturbed by rebellious citizens. It would be a favour of the their views by inscribing the item on its agenda under dangerous precedent to recognize the right of the scribing on it Article 35 of the Charter. He reminded the Council United Nations to intervene between the Government question of co that under Article 24 of the Charter, it must act on of a State and those of its citizens who were disturbing lieved that for beh~lf of all Member States. the peace. It would also be a violation of the Charter, question might 340. Referring to the statement of the representa­ not only of Article 2, paragraph 7, which specificaIly 349. The I tive of France that the Algerian question fell within the embodied the principle of non-intervention, but of Ar­ domestic jurisdiction of France, the representative of Algeria was a: ticle 34 as well, since under the latter the competence it would be cl I ran pointed out that Algeria had been an independel~t of the Security Council was limited to a dispute or country before 1830. As an independent State, It in questions wi situation the continuance of which was likely to en­ State. had maintained diplomatic relations and had con­ danger international peace and security. The representa­ cluded treaties with many countries. Even after its tive of France wondered whether the situation in Al­ 350. The r conquest by France, the sovereignty vested in the Al­ geria was such as to endanger international peace and gation shared gerian people, which was i.nalienable, had not disap­ security. Even the thirteen Member States had men­ and Mr. Bulg: peared; it had merely remained dormant and could.be tioned "in their letter a "threat to peace and security" tion of 19 M reawakened by a national movement. The Algerian and had not inserted the qualfying adjective "inter­ would be able question was thus purely a colonial one. The Algerian national" which appeared in Chapters VI and VII of Algerian quest people in fact did not enjoy. equal .ri.ghts with Fr~nch the Charter. Maintenance of order in any of the Mem­ times and the citizens, Even the French Prime Minister had admitted ber States could not in itself affect international peace delegation of ] that it was not possible to assimilate Algeria as a French and security, and was, therefore, outside the purview honour its pr province and that Algeria had a personality of its own of the Council. Similarly, neither the violation of funda­ debate on the which must be recognized. mental human rights nor the denial of the right of self­ any practical determination was a matter within the competence of 341. Refusal to allow the Algerian people the right 351. The I of self-determination would constitute a violation of the the Security Council. maintained thr Charter, particularly of Article 1, paragraph 2. More­ 345. The representative of France denied that graph 7, of th over, from the standpoint of the inte~national status France was following a colonial policy in Algeria. ing the Alger of Algeria, whether Algeria was <:.n mtegral. part of Colonialism did not aim to multiply the number of tionally an int France or a French colony, the question remained the schools, to promote social and economic reforms and cardinal princij same as far as the application of the Declaration of to raise under-privileged people to a level at which not intervene Human Rig-hts and United Nations competence were they would he able to be masters of their own destiny. and a number concerned. 'In that respect, the representative of Iran Quoting from a statement of the French Prime Minis­ operation the recalled that the United Nations had declared itself ter, the representative of France said that his Govern­ brought into competent on the question of the treatment of persons ment intended, after the restoration of order in Al­ to this great er of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa, the geria, to hold fair elections and to study with freely principle was Indonesian question and the Chilean request concerning designated representatives of the whole Algerian peo­ fortunately pr events in Czechoslovakia in 1948. That practice cor­ ple the future structure of the indissoluble Franco­ tries old and responded with the principles of the Charter. In addi­ Moslem community. be open and vi tion. the word "essentially" in the text of Article 2, tion against ) 346. For those reasons, the French delegation would parag-raph 7, allowed a wider interpretation of that United Nation Arti~le. Thus the prohibition in that paragraph could ask the Council to refuse to include in its agenda the complaint submitted by the thirteen Arab-Asian States. Member State: not be applied to all matters within the domestic juris­ of violence wit diction of a Member State but only to those "essen­ 347. At the 730th meeting (26 June), the represen­ against inscri tially" within that jurisdiction. A question bearing tative of Iran said that the Council from its inception 44 • had followed a liberal policy with regard to the in­ solely for such reasons that Her Majesty's Government af­ clusion of items in its agenda. That policy had been were opposed to consideration of the item. Debate in es­ supported in the past by States at present opposed the Council would not help to promote a peaceful solu­ ier­ to the inclusion of the Algerian question in the Coun­ tion but would inflame passions still further. His Gov­ the cil's agenda. For example, during the discussion on ernment considered that the future of Algeria was a sti­ the Chilean letter concerning events in Czechoslovakia problem which could only be worked out by the Govern­ the in 1948, the then representatives of France, the United ment of France in consultation with representatives of not States and Belgium had argued that an item had first the inhabitants of Algeria. They had entire confidence be to be included ill the agenda in order to determine that this problem could be left to the courage and bed whether it came within the meaning of Article 2, para­ sagacity of France. graph There were numerous instances in which the 7. 352. The representative of Belgium stated that .ere Council had included questions in the agenda, while Belgium's position had been that the United Nations, cnt stressing the fact that, in so doing, it was in no way under Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, had no to prejudging its competence or the substance of the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Charter was 1011 question. categorical on that point. He further pointed out that 3+8. The representative of China said that his dele­ as regards the question of United Nations competence lirs gation viewed the question of the inclusion of the item in the Algerian matter, it had already been the subject lie­ in the agenda from one viewpoint only: whether it of lengthy discussion at the tenth session of the Gen­ een would help in the re-establishment of peace and harmony eral Assembly. He saw no reason for holding a new een in Algeria. Any action by the Council under Articles 34 debate on the subject. nal and 35, in the present circumstances, would have to 353. The representative of Yugoslavia said that nty have the co-operation of France to be fruitful. It was there was no doubt that the situation in Algeria was es- clear that France would not afford the Council any very serious and it was only natural that it should have measure of co-operation in that respect. On the other become a matter of growing international concern call­ hand, France had announced a programme of liberal tan ing for a solution which would pay heed to the rightful reforms in Algeria to come into effect as soon as was stic interests of both parties. There were a number of possible. Thus, while his delegation was generally in ich avenues towards such a solution. None had been fully favour of the Council adopting a liberal attitude in in­ ea explored. It was essential that both sides should spare scribing on its agenda issues concerning which the the no efforts to reach a settlement and for that reason his question of competence was raised, it nevertheless be­ ent delegation felt that at the present moment a debate in lieved that for the present the inscription 0. the Algerian ing the Council would not be in the best interests of an question might not serve any useful purpose. .er, early and satisfactory settlement in Algeria. lily 349. The representative of Cuba considered that 354. The representative of the Union of Soviet So­ \r­ Algeria was an overseas province of France and that cialist Republics said that the Council should not dis­ ice it would be dangerous for the Council to intervene regard a request from thirteen States to or in questions within the domestic jurisdiction of another Member consider the situation in Algeria, particularly when en- State. ta­ those States had claimed that a threat to peace and '\.1­ 350. The representative of Peru said that his dele­ security existed there. In order to determine whether or .nd gation shared the hope expressed by M. Guy Mollet not any such threat to peace existed, the parties must en­ and Mr. Bulganin in the joint Franco-Soviet declara­ be heard and the matter must be objectively examined :y" tion of 19 May 1956 that the French Government with the aim of finding a way of solving the problem. er- would be able to find an appropriate solution of the Accordingly, the Soviet delegation would vote for the of Algerian question in accordance with the spirit of the inclusion of the request of the thirteen Member States m­ times and the interests of the peoples involved. The in the agenda of the Security Council. delegation of Peru firmly believed that France would ice 355. The representative of the United States noted ew honour its promise and for that reason it felt that a debate on the Algerian question would not achieve that the problem of Algeria was complex and that its la­ solution was not likely to be easy. As Members of an any practical result. ~If­ Organization having a strongly humanitarian impulse, of 351. The representative of the United Kingdom they must care deeply about every single individual in maintained that the Council, under Article 2, para­ Algeria. All looked forward to the day, which he hoped lat graph 7, of the Charter, was precluded from consider­ was not too far distant, when a liberal and just solution 'la. ing the Algerian question as Algeria was constitu­ would be found which would enable all the people in of tionally an integral part of France. It was one of the Algeria to live and work together in peace and harmony. nd cardinal principles of the United Nations that it should His delegation's concern was that a truly constructive ch 110t intervene in the domestic affairs of its members solution for Algeria should be found as soon as pos­ ~y. and a number of founder nations, without whose co­ sible. It had considered carefully all of the factors in­ IS­ operation the United Nations could hardly have heen volved, and had concluded that consideration by the '11- brought into being, would not have lent their efforts Council of the situation at that time would not con­ \1­ to this great enterprise unless they had known that this tribute to a solution. ~Iy principle was enshrined in the Charter. It was un­ Decision: The adoption of the provisional agenda ~o- fortunately probable that all over the world, in coun­ (,)'jAgenda/730) 'was rejected b_v 7 uotes to 2 (Iran. :0- tries old and new, there would from time to time the USSR), with 2 abstentions (China, Yuqoslouia'i. be open and violent defiance by elements of the popula­ rld tion against lawfully constituted governments, The 356. The President said it would be clear, from the he United Nations must not allow itself to be used by statements heard. that the Council's decision did not es, Member States to encourage insurrection and the use reflect any indifference towards the human sufferings of violence within other countries. The legal arguments which arose from the situation in Algeria. The decision n­ against inscription were conclusive; but it was not was founded on the Council's assessment of its responsi- Jll 45 .. III IS' PI 4 .4

bilities under the Charter and various members had ex­ the question. No doubt every member hoped that, in • pressed their doubts whether inscription of the item accordance with the expressed determination of the would have helped to solve the problem and also French Government, a just and peaceful solution would whether the Council was legally competent to consider be found as soon as possible.

!r

357. Th Security C Islands, eo 22 July 195 on 2 Augus Trusteeship Security C under the I the politica ment of the

360. On Council of mitted to tl the Securir the Council the Special resolution I .~ offering its Governmenl mitted was by the COUI acting provi cancelled a for Foreign 1955, and while the agreement mittee coul tives of Cos

362. 0 the United General th mand of tl

46 - .at, in )f the would

PART V

Matters brought to the attention of the Council but not discussed I ( Chapter 6

REPORTS ON THE TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS

357. The report of the Trusteeship Council to the 358. On 23 January and 24 March 1956, the Security Council on the Trust Territory of the Pacific Secretary-General informed the members of the Secu­ 1-- Islands, covering the period from 17 July 1954 to rity Council of the receipt of petitions from, or relating 22 July 1955 (Sj3416) was transmitted to the Council to, the Pacific Islands Trust Territory (Sj3540 and Sj3563). on 2 August 1955. It described the manner in which the ~59. Trusteeship Council had carried out on behalf of the On 30 April 1956, the Secretary-General trans­ mitted to the members of the Security Council the re­ Security Council those functions of the United Nations, port (Sj3593) received from the representative of the under the International Trusteeship System relating to United States of America on the administration of the the political, economic, social and educational advance­ Trust Territory for the period 1 July 1954 to 30 June ment of the inhabitants of that strategic Trust Territory. 1955.

Chapter 7

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

360. On 8 September 1955, the Chairman of the 361. On 23 April 1956, the Chairman of the Council of the Organization of American States trans­ Inter-American Peace Committee transmitted to the mitted to the Secretary-General for the information of Secretary-General, for the information of the Security the Security Council a report (Sj3438) submitted to Council in accordance with Article 54 of the Charter, a the Council of the Organization of American SL ~I;S by copy of the minutes of a meeting held on 20 April by the Inter-American Peace Committee concerning a ca.se the Special Committee which it had established under submitted to it by the Government of Cuba on 27 Feb­ resolution In of 24 February 1955 for the purpose of ruary (Sj3591). The Committee had received a com­ offering its co-operation to the representatives of the plaint by Cuba of certain difficulties that had arisen Governments of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Also trans­ in its relations with the Dominican Republic, had mitted was a resolution approved on 8 September 1955 transmitted that complaint tl""\ the Dominican Republic, by the Council of the Organization of A-nerican States and had kept each party informed of the comments on acting provisionally as an organ of consultation, which the matter made by the other party. The Committee cancelled a call for a meeting of consultation of Ministers had also established personal contact with the repre­ for Foreign Affairs that had been made on 11 January sentatives of the parties in order to contribute to a 1955, and retained the Special Committee in existence clarification of the issues susceptible of promoting an understanding between them. The Committee, taking while the negotiations for the signing of a bilateral into account all the aspects of the matter, expressed the agreement were in progress, so that the Special Com­ hope that the two Governments would be able to settle mittee could continue to co-operate with the representa­ their difficulties within a short time through regular tives of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. diplomatic channels.

Chapter 8

COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THE KOREAN QUESTION

362. On 28 September 1955, the representative of United Nations had made available to the Unified Com­ the United States of America informed the Secretary­ mand in Korea had been 5 June 1955, when General General that the effective date of the change of corn­ Lyman L. Lemnitzer had replaced General Maxwell B. mand of the military force which Members of the Taylor (Sj3402jAdd.1).

47 - Chapter 9 COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THE SITUATION IN MOROCCO

363. On 28 July 1955, the representatives of Af­ repression had been taken against the Moroccan peo­ ghanistan, Burma, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, ple, who were denied the most elementary liberties Lebanon, Pakistan, the , Saudi Arabia, and freedom, and the situation had been further ag­ Syria, Thailand and Yemen addressed a letter (Sj gravated by the organization of French terrorist move­ 3414) to the President of the Security Council bringing ments operating in broad daylight and possessing ample to the attention of the Council, under Article 35, para­ supplies of modern equipment. Viewing the explosive graph 1, of the Charter, the grave situation in Morocco, situation in Morocco with grave concern and anxiety, and particularly in and around the city of Casablanca. the fourteen Governments considered that it was bound That situation was likely to endanger the maintenance to have the most serious repercussions throughout Asia of international peace and security. Events had un­ and Africa and to lead to an increase of international fortunately justified the apprehension entertained by tensions endangering the maintenance of international the fifteen Member States which had requested (Sj peace and security. They earnestly hoped that the Coun­ 3085) consideration of the matter on 21 August 1953, cil would, as a matter of urgency, direct its resources when the Council had failed to inscribe the item on its to dealing with the grave situation, and that means agenda. Morerver, the recommendations of the General would be found for the establishment of normal condi­ Assembly in resolution 612 (VII) had so far been tions conducive to the realization of the legitimate aspi­ unimplemented. Instead, extremely harsh measures of rations of the Moroccan people.

Chapter 10

REPORT OF THE DISARMAMENT COMMISSION

364. By a letter dated 25 November 1955 (Sj3463), Committee of the Disarmament Commission (DCj71) the Chairman of the Disarmament Commission for­ warded to the Secretary-General, for transmission to together with the verbatim records of the relevant the Security Council, the second report of the Sub- meetings of the Commission.

Chapter 11

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT, THE HAGUE, 1954

365. On 13 March 1956, the Secretary-General cir­ Inter-Governmental Conference at The Hague in 1954. culated a note (Sj3557) referring to a communication At the request of the Director-General, the Secretary­ addressed to him on 16 February 1955 by the Director­ General included for the information of the members of General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization concerning the Convention the Security Council the texts of the resolution of the for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event Inter-Governmental Conference as well as the text of of Armed Conflict, which had been prepared by an the resolution of the UNESCO General Conference.

Chapter 12

COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE SITUATION IN EASTERN ARABIA

366. In a letter dated 28 October 1955 (Sj3450), Kingdom member of the Tribunal constituted under the addressed to the President of the Security Council, the agreement. The Government of Saudi Arabia had in representative of Saudi Arabia drew the Council's at­ fact been awaiting notification of the new United King­ tention, under Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Charter, dom member of the Tribunal, in order that the arbitra­ to the situation in the Buraimi oasis and adjacent areas tion might be carried on, when the aggression had resulting from acts of armed aggression on 26 October occurred. The Government of Saudi Arabia considered by forces acting under the authority of the Government that the situation was likely to endanger the maintenance of the United Kingdom, which had forcibly occupied of international peace and security, despite its continu­ large territories in Eastern Arabia. The letter charged ing efforts to find a peaceful solution, and reserved its that the aggression had been carried out in defiance of right to request that a meeting of the Security Council a valid and subsisting agreement to arbitrate the dispute, be called to consider the matter and to take any neces­ an agreement entered into by the Saudi Arabian and sary measures. United Kingdom Governments on 30 July 1954, but not 367. In a letter dated 29 October (Sj3452) , the carried out owing to the resignation of the United representative of the United Kingdom, in reply, stated 48 that, as the Government responsible for the interna­ The frontier line which had eventually been declared tional relations of the State of and acting as the frontier by the United Kingdom Government, on behalf of the Sultan of Muscat at his request, the with the agreement 01 the two Rulers, was one which Government of the United Kingdom had been attempt­ involved substantial concessions to the Saudi Arabians. ins for seve. al years through friendly negotiations to The United Kingdom Government regretted that the re~ch agreement with the Saudi Arabian Government above steps had been necessary, but had had no other on the location of the frontiers between that State and means, since negotiations and arbitration had both the States of Abu Dhabi and Muscat, Part of the oasis failed, of honouring its obligations to the two Arab !J of Buraimi lay in Abu Dhabi and the rest in Muscat. In Rulers concerned. '1 1952, a village near Buraimi belonging to the Sultan of 368. On 30 November the representative of Saudi Muscat had been forcibly occupied by a Saudi Arabian Arabia informed the President 0: the Council (S/ official, and two years later an arbitration agreement 3465) of a series of violations by United Kingdom had been drawn up which, it had been hoped, would military aircraft of Saudi Arabian air-space. The inci­ lead to a settlement. However, Saudi Arabian author­ dents had made much more difficult his Government's ities had systematically disregarded the conditions of continuing efforts to work OL1t with the United King­ the agreement to the point that a fair and impartial dom a peaceful solution of the dispute between them it'. arbitration had not been possible, and the Government Eastern Arabia. of the United Kingdom had concluded that the Saudi 369. In a letter dated 6 December (S/3481), the , Arabian Government was no more willing to reach representative of the United Kingdom expressed regret f an eq.iitable solution by arbitration than it had ben I for the infringements (If Saudi Arabian air-space which previr usly by negotiation. Its actions had amounteu investigation had shown to have taken place. to a repudiation of the arbitration agreement, and the proceedings before the Tribunal therein established had 370. In a letter dated 10 February lY56 (S/3548), been rendered void by the resignation of the President the representative of Saudi Arabia reported a new and two members. In fulfilling it>; duty to protect the British violation of Saudi Arabian air-space by United legitimate interests of the Ruler oi Abu Dhabi and the Kingdom aircraft. Such repeated incursions showed a Sultan of Muscat, the United Kingdom Government had continuing disregard for the rights of Saudi Arabia felt obliged ':0 advise them that the attempt to reach that could only heighten the serious tension which al­ a just settlement by means of arbitration had failed. ready existed. The forces of those Rulers, supported by the Trucial 371. Jn a reply dated 15 February (S/3550), the levies, had accordingly resumed their previous representative of the United Kingdom stated that the control of the Buraimi oasis and the areas to the west incident referred to by the representative of Saudi of it, using the minimum of force necessary to disarm Arabia had occurred at a place outside Saudi Arabian the Saudi police group, which hacl then been repatriated. territory.

Chapter .13

LETTER DATED 12 JULY 1956 FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

372. Bya letter dated 12 July 1956 (S/3616), ad­ interpreted as deliberate and as having been made for dressed to the President of the Council, the representa­ reconnaissance purposes, the Soviet Government had tive of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declared addressed a note of protest to the United States Gov­ that United States aircraft had recently invaded the air­ ernment. The representative of the USSR concluded space of the Soviet Union on a number of occasions, by stating that, in the event of a repetition of such in­ thereby committing a gross violation of its State sov­ ereignty and of the generally accepted standards of in­ admissible acts, his Government would be compelled to ternational law. In view of those acts, which affected the request that the matter be placed before a meeting of security of the Soviet Union, and which could only be the Council.

49 •

Meeling

6<»' .: APPE~iDICES (private}

I. Representatives and deputy, alternate and acting representatives 700tb accredited to the Security Council 701st The following representatives and deputy, alternate 11. Charles Lucet 702nd and ;>~ting representatives were accredited to the Secu­ (until 20 October 1955) 703 I'd rity Council during the period covered by the present ~L Louis de Guiringaucl 704ih report: (from 20 October 1955) 705th M. Pierre Ordonneau 706th .·1 listralia- 707th Iran Dr. E. Ronald Walker \fr. Xasrollnh Entezam xr-. William Douglass Forsyth Dr. Djalal AIJtillll Mr. Brian C. Hi1I Dr. Mohammed AIi Massoud-Ansari Beloivni .\' eta Z ealalld2 M. Fernand van Langenhove i08th Sir Leslie Munro M. joseph Xisot 709th Mr. A. R. Perry M. Georges Cassiers Peru Bra:::il2 710th Sr. Victor A. Belaunde :\1. Cyro de Freitas-Valle Sr. Carlos Ho1guin de Lavalle 711th M. Jayme de Barros Gornes i12th Tllrkey 2 713th Chilla Mr. Selim Sarper 714th Dr. Tingfu F. Tsiang Mr. Turgut Menemencioglu 715th Dr. Shuhsi Hsu Mr. Chiping H. C. Kiang Union. of Sorict Socialist Republics Mr. Arkady Aleksandrovich Sobolev Cllba! 1\11'. Georgy Filipovich Saksin Dr. Emilio Nufiez-Portuondo Dr. Carlos Blanco Sanchez United Kinqdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Sr. Jose Miguel Ribas Sir Pierson Dixon Dr. Ulclarica Maiias Mr. P. M. Crosthwaite

France United States of America M. Henri Hoppenot Mr. Heury Cabot Lodge, J!'. (until 24 August 1955) 111'. j ames J. Wadsworth M. Herve Alphand 111'. j arnes \V. Barco (from 24 August 1955) j'lI,1!oslnda 1 Dr. J oza Brilej 1 Term of office began on 1 January 1956. Dr. Djura Nincic 2 Term of office ended on 31 December 1955. Mr. Dimce Belovski

H. Presidents of the Security Council

The following representatives held the office of Presi­ Peru dent of the Security Council during the period covered Sr. Victor A. Belaunde (1 to 31 January 1956) by the present report: Union of S07.,i"t Socialist Republics Belgium Mr. Arkady Aleksandrovich Sobolev Cl to 29 February 1956) M. Fernand van Langenhove (16 to 31 July 1955) United Kinqdoni of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Brazil Sir Pierson Dixon (1 to 31 March 1956) M. Cyro de Freitas-Valle (1 to 31 August 1955) United States uf America China Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, J I'. (1 to 30 April 1956) Dr. Tingfu F. Tsiang (l to 30 September 1955) Yugoslavia France Dr. J,'7a Brilej (l to 31 May 1956) M. Herve Alphand (1 to 31 October 19~=) Australia Iran M. Nasrollah Entezam (1 to 30 November 1955) Dr. E. Ronald Walker (1 to 30 June 1956) New Zealand Belqium Sir Leslie Munro Cl to 31 December 1955) :Mr. J oseph Nisot Cl to 15 J...ly 1956) so • Ill. Meetings of the SccUI·i.y Council during the period fron, 16 July 1955 to 15 July 1956

Meeliuo Subject Date .11.·.·(11111 Date August 1955 February 1956 61)9' .: Report of the Security Council 11 716th \dmission of new Members 6 (pri·.ate) to the General Assembly March 1956 September 1955 717th The Palestine question 26 700th The Palestine question 8 718th The Palestine question 28 December 1955 April 1956 701st Admission of new Members 10 719th The Palestine question 3 702nd Adrrission of new Members 10 720th The Palestine question 3 703rd Ad: ssion of new Members 13 72lst The Palestine question 4 704th Ad, ..rssion of new Members 13 722nd The Palestine question 4 705th Admission of new Members 14 May 1956 706th Admission of new Members 15 707th The Palestine question 16 723rd The Palestine question 29 Proposal to call a general C01~­ 724th The Palestine questior 31 ference of the Members of the 725th The Palestine question 31 United Nations for the pur­ purpose of reviewing the June 1956 Charter 726th The Palestine question 1 70Sth Admission of new Members 21 727th The Palestine question 1 709th The Palestine question 22 728th The Palestine question 4 729th Adoption of the agenda (relat­ 26 January 1956 ing to letter dated 13 June 710th The Palestine question 12 1956 (S/3609) concerning Al­ 711th The Palestine question 12 geria) 712th The Palestine question 13 73ihh Adoption of the agenda (relat­ 26 713th The Palestine question 17 mg' to letter date: 13 June 714th The Palestine question 18 1956 (S/;li)09) concerning Al­ 715th The Palestine question 19 geria)

IV. Representatives, Chairmen and Principal Secretaries of eland the Military Staff Committee (16 fitI}. 1955 to 15 filly 1956)

A. REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH SERVICE

Delegation of China Period of Service Lt, General Ho Shai-lai, Chinese Army 16 July 1055 to present time Commander Chen Tsai-ho, Chinese Navy 16 July 1955 to present time

Delegation of France General de Brigade M. Penette, French Army 16 July 1955 to present time Capitaine de Fregate M. Sanoner, French Navy 16 July 1955 to 25 July 1955 ~ " Capitaine de Vaisseau E. Cagne, French Navy 25 July 1955 to present time t.:'· I. , : 1 Delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics r. ' Major-General 1. M. Saraiev, Soviet Army 16 July 1CJ55 to present time , '•... Lt. Colonel A. M. Kuchurnov, USSR Air Force 5 October 1955 to present time ,~; 16 July 1955 to present time Captain 2nd Grade B. F. Gladkov, USSR Navy I :j

'i Delegation of the United Kinqdom of Great Britain 1 and N orthern Ireland ruary 1956) Vice Admiral G. Barnard, Royal Navy 16 July 1955 to present time eland Air Vice Marshal R L. R Atcherlcy, RA.F. 16 July 1935 to 31 December 1955 Air Vice Marshal A. D. Selway, RA.F. 1 January 1956 to present time Major-General G. E. Prior-Palrner, British Army 16 July 1955 to 25 June 1956 Major-General V. Boucher, British Army 26 June 195.) to present time » Delegation of the United States of America Vice Admiral A. D. Struble, USN 16 July 1955 to 2 July 1956 Vice Admiral F. W. McMahon, US~ 2 J"ly 1956 to present time Lt. General L. W. J ohnson, USAI' 16 july 1955 to 31 March 1956 Lt. General C. B. Stone Ill, USAF 1 April 1956 to present time Lt. General T. W. Herren, USA 16 July 1955 to present time

51 •

B. LIST OF CHAIRMEN (16 iul:y 1<)55 to 15 Jul» 1956)

MuliuO Date Chairman Delellatioll 265th 21 July 1955 (-;eneral de Brigade ~f. Penette, French :\rmy France ?66th 4 Aug. 1955 Major-General 1. M. Saraiev, Soviet Army USSR 267th 18 Aug. 1955 Major-General I. 1\1. Saraiev, Soviet Army USSR 268th 1 Sept. 1955 Vice Admiral (";. Barnard, Royal Navy United Kingdom 269th 15 Sept. 1955 Vice Admiral G. Barnard, Royal Navy United Kingdom 270th 29 Sept. 1955 Air Marshal R. L. R. Atcherley, RAF United Kingdom 271st 13 Oct. 1955 Vice Admiral A. D. Siruble, U.3:-.J United States ?72nd 27 Oct. 1955 Vice Admiral A, D. Struble, USN U nited States 273I'd 10 Nov. 1955 Lt. General Ho Shai-lai, Chinese Army Chins, 274th 23 Nov. 1955 Lt. General Ho Shai-Iai, Chinese Army China 275th 8 Dec. 1955 General de Brigade 11. Penette, French Army France 276th 22 Dec. 1955 Capitaine de Vaisseau E. Cagne, French Navy France 277th 5 Jan. 1956 Maior-Ceneral 1. M. Saraiev, Soviet Army USSR 278th 19 Jan. 1956 Major-General 1. M. Saraiev, Soviet Army USSR 279th 2 Feb. 1956 Vice Admiral G. Barnard, Royal Xavy United Kingdom 280th 16 Feb. 1956 Major-General G. E. Prim -Palrner, British Army United Kingdom 281st 1 Mar. 1956 Colonel R. F. C. Vance, US:\F United States 282nd 15 Mar. 1956 Lt. General T. W, Herrcn, USA United States 283I'd 29 Mar. 1956 Colonel R. F. C. Vance, USAF United States 284th 12 Apr. 1956 Lt. General Ho Shai-Iai, Chinese Army China 285th 26 Apr. 1956 Lt. General Ho Shai-lai, Chinese Army China 28i.Jth 10 May 1956 General de Brigade :0.1. Penctte, French Army France 287th 24 May 1956 G.~neral de Brigade M. Penette, French Army France zssu. 7 June 1956 Lt. Colonel A. M. Kuchumov, USSR Air Force USSR 289th 21 June 1956 Lt. Colonel A. :M. Kuchumov, USSR Air Force USSR 290th 5 July 1956 Air Vice Marshal A. D. Selway, Royal Air Force United Kingdom

C. LIST OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARIES (16 July 1955 to 15 July 1956)

Meetiug Date Principal Secretary Deleqction. 265th 21 July 1955 Chef d'Escadron G. Buchet, French Army France 266th 4 Aug. 1955 Lt. Colonel D. F. Polyakov, Soviet Army USSR 267th 18 Aug. 1955 Lt. Colone! D. F. Polyakov, Soviet Army USSR 268th 1 Sept. 1955 Commander W. A. Juniper, Royal Navy United 269th 15 Sept. 1955 Commander \\'. A. Juniper, Roya! Navy United 270th 29 Sept. 1955 Commander W. A. ]'.miper, Royal Navy United 271st 13 Oct. 1955 Commander B. J. Lauff, USN United 272nd 27 Oct. 1955 Commander B. ]. Lauff, USN United 273rd 10 Nov. 1955 T Colonel Lu Ngo-rning, Chinese Army China 274th 23 Nov. 1955 Colonel Lu Ngo-ming, Chinese Army China 275th 8 Dec. 1955 Lt. Colonel G. Buchet, French Army France 276th 22 Dec. 1955 Lt. Colonel G. Buchct, French Army France 277th 5 jan, 1956 Lt. Colonel D. F. Polyakov, Soviet Army USSR 278th 19 Jan. 1956 Lt. Colonel D. F. Polyakov, Soviet Army USSR 279th 2 Feb. 1956 Commander W. A. Juniper, Royal Navy United Kingdom 280th 16 Feb. 1956 Lt. Colonel K. R. Farquhar, British Army United Kingdom 281st 1 Mar. 1956 Colonel J. ]. Gormley, USMC United States 282nd 15 Mar. 1956 Lt. Colonel E. C. Acuff, USA United States

~_. , 283rd 29 Mar. 1956 Lt. Colonel E. C. Acuff, USA United States \~ 284th 12 Apr. 1956 Lt. Colonel Lu Ngo-ming, Chinese Army China 285th 26 Apr. 1956 Lt. Colonel Lu Ngo-rning, Chinese Army China 286th 10 May 1956 Lt. Colonel G. Buchet, French Army France 287th 24 May 1956 Lt. Colonel G. Buchet, French Army France 288th 7 June 1956 Lt. Colonel D. F. Polyakov, Soviet Army USSR 289th 21 June 1956 Lt. Colonel D. F. Polyakov, Soviet Army USSR 290th 5 July 1956 Lt. Colonel K. R. Farquhar, British Army United

52